Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to take petitions first.

PETITIONS

Football (Identity Cards)

Mr. Graham Allen: I have a petition from the Football Supporters Association of the east midlands and other football supporters, and the signatures on it have been collected from places as far apart as Boston, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and all the counties of the east midlands. The petition states:
We condemn the proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identification cards, and we believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problems of football—related violence, will hinder football's attempts to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your hon. House will urge the Government to bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters.
On behalf of those genuine football supporters, I have pleasure in presenting the petition to the House. Let the Government take note.

To lie upon the Table

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am taking petitions first.

Mr. Denis Howell: I, too, wish to present a humble petition by football supporters, which brings the total number of signatures to the petition to over 430,000 which, I think, makes it the third largest petition since the war. The House will be interested to know that that represents almost exactly the gate at every football club in the country on a Saturday afternoon.
The petition says that the proposed Football Spectators Bill will cause total chaos at the turnstiles to legitimate spectators entering football grounds and will impose unacceptable restrictions upon the liberties of law-abiding subjects and place unacceptable costs upon such supporters. As with the other petitions, this one states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your hon. House will urge the Government to bring forward proposals which will have the support of genuine football supporters. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: There is one more petition.

Student Loans

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I wish to present a petition organised by the students of Goldsmiths' college in my constituency and signed by David Anteh, 7 Malpas road, Brockley and 1,200 others. The petition states:
The humble petition of citizens and students of Great Britain and Northern Ireland showeth that any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees and student loans, whether partially or fully, will further limit access to higher education. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your hon. House do reject any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray etc.
The petitioners fear, as I do, that student loans will seriously limit access to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech on this matter. She must present her petition now please.

Ms. Ruddock: This matter is of concern to the students and staff of Goldsmiths' college because that college has equal opportunities for women, black students and part-time students, all of whom would be disproportionately affected by the Government's proposals. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

To lie upon the Table.

Points of Order

Mr. Speaker: I shall now take points of order.

Dr. David Owen: In view of the uncertainty and confusion in the international money markets, Mr. Speaker, have you had any indication from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer about a statement on the economic situation?

Mr. Graham Allen: They are paying his wages.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is intolerable to have background conversations going on when I am listening to a point of order.

Dr. Owen: I should have thought that it was in the interests of all hon. Members that we should hear about any new Government economic initiative, such as a change in the base rate or a change in policy towards sterling, not through the press but here in the House. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask you whether you have had any indication of the Government's intention to make a statement in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with one matter at a time. I have had no such information. Normally I should receive notification before 10 o'clock.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important issue. While you have not had notification of that, the Opposition did not have notification that two Bills were to be guillotined this week. That causes us anxiety. First, the Government should come to the House as an urgent priority to sort out the enormous chaos caused by the squabbling between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street. Secondly, at least on his occasion, the Government should give proper notification


to the Opposition and on the annunciators so that they cannot slip in a few platitudes in the middle of the debate this morning, but must provide an adequate explanation to the House. I raise this matter because of their conduct—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter was raised yesterday. I heard the Leader of the House apologise for the fact that no notice was given. We cannot pursue that matter now. I am sure that in future notice will be given.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you had no information that the Government sought a statement from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will you confirm that, if the new Chancellor is willing and considers it necessary, as many of us do, to make a statement about exchange rate policy, it would still be possible for you to arrange a statement at 11 o'clock if you received notice between now and then, after the Chancellor has seen the response of the British exchange markets to overnight falls in New York?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is this the same subject?

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Yes. In a similar crisis 25 years ago, John Profumo lied to the House. He was asked to come to the House to explain his actions. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a serious allegation that the Prime Minister had misled the House, because at 3.15 pm yesterday she said that the Chancellor had her full support——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashton: I have not finished my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I know. The hon. Member made broadly the same point yesterday. We cannot continue with it today. The Front Bench gave the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the answer.

Mr. Ashton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Front Bench. It answered the point, but I am putting it to you. Despite the Prime Minister misleading the House at 3.15 yesterday afternoon——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman makes that kind of allegation, he should write to me, because it is a matter of privilege. I will not have that allegation made in the Chamber today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 19 October the Home Secretary said in a statement on the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings:
the four persons involved will be eligible to apply to me for compensation under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amount of the compensation will be determined by an independent assessor."—[Official Report, 19 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 273.]
Yesterday, at Question Time, the Home Secretary said:
But I hope that Opposition Members, in their pursuit of this matter, will take into account the fact that the people who suffered most from it were not those who were wrongfully imprisoned, but those who were murdered at Guildford."—[Official Report, 26 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 1035.]
My point of order is that the Home Secretary made it clear in his statement that the four had been wrongfully imprisoned, that the convictions were quashed and that, as there had been a miscarriage of justice, the four could apply to him for compensation. Yesterday, however, he seemed to go some way from accepting the decision of the Court of Appeal, prejudicing their right to compensation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. No—this is a matter of argument between the hon. Member—and perhaps other hon. Members—and the Home Secretary. It is not a matter of order for the Chair. I said yesterday—the whole House must accept and recognise this—that I cannot be held responsible for answers given, provided that they are in order. The Home Secretary's answer was in order.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order for you is that the House is being denied access to information. Clearly, the Government and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had access yesterday and previously to the Treasury's autumn forecasts. Setting aside Walters and all the rest of it, those forecasts were the basis of the ex-Chancellor's decision yesterday. Will the House be allowed to see that information, so that we can know the true extent of the economic catastrophe and of what happened yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: That is a spurious point of order, even for a Friday morning.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wonder whether you could assist me, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have one particularly strong, peculiar and far-reaching power, which is not often exercised, but which you share with my wife. You have the ability to section a Member whom you feel is probably bordering on insanity. I think that you should move directly to No. 10 Downing street, as clearly there is a candidate there for your exercise of that power.

Mr. Speaker: I was chosen by the House to be the Speaker. Let us move on.

Football Spectators Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football Spectators Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received by the Secretary of State under the Act—[Mr. Moynihan.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: This ways and means resolution should not pass without comment. It is a narrow resolution which was made available to Members only this morning. It should have been provided earlier in the week, as is the custom. The Government have been thrown into chaos by the huge diversion in economic policy between the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister's croney, who was employed at the taxpayers expense to the tune of £50,000 a year—at least there had been some saving to taxpayers—so it is understandable that the Government have not been able to issue the resolution earlier for Members' consideration.
The resolution relates to clause 10(2) of the Bill:
An application for a licence in respect of any premises shall be made in such manner, in such form and accompanied by such fee as may be detemined by the Secretary of State.
That is a wide power. The Secretary of State has absolute power to determine the fee, the manner and the form in which the fee shall be levied. Will the Minister give an account of what scale of fees he has in mind? As has been demonstrated by the number of petitions presented this morning, there is widespread anxiety among football supporters and clubs about the scheme, which will involve football clubs in expenditure. I want that assurance from the sports Minister today.
Unfortunately, it seems that the fees will not be listed in a statutory instrument. The primary legislation gives the Secretary of State the power to levy the fees, so this is the only opportunity that we shall have specifically to discuss the fees. The Minister now has a useful opportunity to tell the House whether he will bear in mind the position of football clubs so that some of the marginal clubs are not driven out of existence.
Some football league clubs are in a good financial position. They are wealthy and powerful. But that does not apply to all clubs. Several clubs are struggling for survival. This wretched football identity scheme will create more problems for such clubs, so the Secretary of State should take into account their financial position and the effect of fees on them. Will the Minister give that assurance?

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cryer: I shall finish my point. We want an assurance that, in applying the power that we grant to him, the Secretary of State will take into account the financial position of clubs, if necessary levying only a nominal fee, and that he will not regard this power as a means of raising revenue. The resolution requires that the fees be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and other members of the Committee which considered the Football Spectators Bill that, as the Taylor inquiry has not yet produced a report, the best course of action would be to withdraw the motion and the Bill until we have the final report from Lord Justice Taylor?

Mr. Cryer: That would be an extremely sensible course of action. The Government promised that they would be able to take into account the results of the Taylor inquiry as the Bill progressed through Committee, but that was patently not the case. I expect the Government to give solid, cast-iron assurances to the House about the level of fees that they will levy. I hope that the assurances are rather stronger than those which were given to the House about taking into account the results of the Taylor inquiry.
One of the problems with ministerial assurances, although I continue to look for them as they provide the only opportunity that we have to obtain assurances in respect of ways and means motions, is that, at a time of Government chaos of the sort that we have seen over the past 24 hours, Ministers can move with amazing rapidity. For example, only yesterday at 6 pm the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) was the Government Chief Whip. By about 7 pm, he was the Home Secretary.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the ways and means motion. I know that he appreciates that it is a narrow motion.

Mr. Cryer: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am saying that I am seeking assurances about the level of fees that will be levied. The difficulty is that the Minister for Sport can be changed. I shall welcome the assurances that I hope he will give, but he could disappear tomorrow. An alteration should be made so that a system of fees and safeguards is set out in the Bill, and the fees should take into account the financial position of clubs. That would be of great advantage to the House. It might be to the advantage of everyone, including the Government, if it is borne in mind when legislation is being drafted that the Prime Minister sacks people at a minute's notice and exercises arbitrary, chaotic and arrogant power.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for filling the void by catching the eye of Mr. Speaker while we were waiting for the Minister to explain the proposal that is before us. We have been considering the Bill for a long time and it is unfortunate that we never get any explanation from the Government. As my hon. Friend says, they continue with their proposals to levy licence fees and other unacceptable charges. At the end of the day, the burden will fall on innocent spectators and not on the clubs. It will fall also on the Consolidated Fund. It is outrageous that the motion is on the Order Paper. We are proceeding with a measure to tax football and also, possibly, to impose further expenditure upon Government funds. It is entirely inappropriate and, in my view, foolhardy.
It is a matter of major importance that, following one of the most horrendous catastrophes witnessed in British society for a long time—the Hillsborough disaster—the Government found it necessary to appoint one of the most eminent judges in the land to hold an inquiry. We know before we have his report that extremely serious matters will have to be discussed following his pronouncements. All these matters will bear on the licence fees that are likely


to be levied on football clubs throughout the country, and we know that we cannot have the Taylor report before December.
We cannot have a debate, which we have been promised, before January, which is half a football season away. Yet the Government choose to proceed with powers to set up a licensing authority, which will have the right to charge without any appeal being possible. They are giving a licensing authority the power of taxation without representation before the Football Spectators Bill is on the statute book. In effect, they are implementing the measure now.

Mr. Steve Norris: Come on, Denis.

Mr. Howell: It is perfectly true.
It is ludicrous that any Government should proceed before the Lord Justice of Appeal whom they appointed has pronounced upon their schemes—[Interruption.] May I say to the Minister——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman who has the Floor if there were not so much cross-talk across the Chamber.

Mr. Howell: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The object of the ways and means motion is to give the licensing authority the power to charge. When the Minister considers the events at Hillsborough and when he asks himself whether there will be additional difficulties at the turnstiles when the identity scheme is imposed, he should ask himself also what would have been the consequences if the scheme had been in operation at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster.
It is inconceivable that Lord Justice Taylor will say anything other than that the Bill is nonsensical and, furthermore, a danger to public safety. I have no doubt that he will say that it should be withdrawn. That is not a far-fetched hypothesis but one that is based on reality. The Government's decision to allow the licensing authority to be set up and to impose fees on football in circumstances that mean that we might not have a scheme at all is crass stupidity of an order that very few of us have seen before. That is an additional reason—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing. I suppose that this week they have seen more crass stupidity than most of my right hon. and hon. Friends can evisage.

Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend has referred to the problems associated with Hillsborough and the report that is being prepared by Lord Justice Taylor. Is he aware that there were great problems at the Conservative party conference when the breakdown of a computer meant that many Conservative Members were denied access? There was no violence outside the conference centre, but inside——

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is far removed from the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

Mr. Tony Banks: I was merely pointing out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the same problem could arise with the implementation of a football membership scheme.

Mr. Howell: I shall take up my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that I shall be able to do so within the rules of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must remain within the rules of order.

Mr. Howell: I quite agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the rules of order bear on the expenditure which can be forced on clubs unnecessarily, which I am sure you will appreciate.
The ways and means motion is being imposed upon us 24 hours after the Minister for Sport has changed the rules of the game. When, in Committee, we sought to introduce some pilot schemes, he said that that could not be done. When we sought to exempt certain divisions, he said that that could not be done.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Minister is not listening.

Mr. Howell: The Minister never listens, so that does not worry me. If he does listen, he does not comprehend, which is even worse.
Only a day ago the Minister solemnly announced—not to the House as he should have done today—but in a press statement:
Electronic turnstiles will be tested before identity cards.
The Minister is seeking powers to set up a licensing authority and the Ways and Means resolution will give that authority power to charge, yet he now tells us that he does not know whether the arrangements will work and whether the scheme will be practicable; we are now to have turnstile experiments at two or three grounds.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are a great supporter of West Bromwich Albion, which is in your constituency. We know that you appreciate your constituents' devoted support of that team. You have been seen very recently at that very ground. You were seen there only last Saturday, and I am very pleased about that.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but not in the middle of my fulsome tribute to Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, who goes to West Bromwich Albion, knows what a struggle it has, and that every penny counts. She knows that it is vital that spectators should get into the ground promptly, and no licensing authority should set about its business before Parliament has considered the Taylor report and decided whether the whole nonsensical idea should be scrapped or whether some other scheme should be introduced.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am sorry to interrupt the cosy chat between midlands Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) is misleading the House, as he did throughout Committee stage and on Second Reading, when he says that having introduced the proposals my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is erring from his original policy. It has always been made perfectly clear—the right hon. Gentleman knows this—that before the scheme is put into operation some sort of experiment has to take place to test the machinery to be used. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that


it was proposed that some sort of scheme should be put into operation before the season in which the policy was fully implemented. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading the House. My hon. Friend's proposals are perfectly in line with all the statements made throughout the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Howell: That is another example of the logic with which we have repeatedly been faced this week. People say, "Everything's all right." When we ask, "In that case, why did the Chancellor resign?" we receive no answer. The hon. Gentleman's intervention belongs to the same perverted logic. The Minister has said throughout that he would not proceed in this way. If he had always intended to proceed in this way, why did he issue the press statement yesterday? He did so because what he proposed was a departure from everything that he had told us in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): May I clarify two points, because the right hon. Gentleman is going off at a tangent? First, I have made it clear since before the introduction of the Bill that if the Government went ahead with a national membership scheme, we should need to be satisfied that the technology was up and working and correct so that the scheme could be implemented effectively from day one. The testing of that technology will be a matter for the football membership authority, which will examine in detail the appropriate technology and tests. Absolutely nothing has changed on that front. I hope that that assists the right hon. Gentleman.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the effect that I have issued a presss release on this subject this week is inaccurate.

Mr. Howell: No doubt it was Mr. Bernard Ingham who gave the information to The Times. Perhaps one of his minions at the Department of the Environment told Sheila Gunn and journalists from other newspapers what the Minister wished to convey.
The statement that has been issued is wholly unacceptable to us in any case because the experiment that we are told is to take place while powers of licensing and taxation are being granted will take place over a short period. If the Minister proposes to have an experiment, it should he over a longer period—at least a season. [Interruption.] The Minister says no. Let me tell him. He obviously intends a proper evaluation of the scheme, and to an extent I welcome that, but no such proper evaluation can take place unless we judge the effects of the scheme on normal league games, cup ties and derbies, in mid-week, in good weather and on filthy winter nights. Unless we examine the effect of the scheme in all those circumstances, any evaluation will be worthless. I submit to the House that that is exactly what the scheme is—worthless.

Mr. Norris: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation. He said that my hon. Friend the Minister had fundamentally changed the rules and changed his policy since our debates in Committee. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers my hon. Friend's words at 11.30 am on Thursday 20 July. He may not have been present, of course, because I know that he had to spend a great deal of time outside the Committee Room briefing his various friends in the press. If he was

around at 11.30 am—Hansard conveniently records the fact that it was 11.30 am—he may remember my hon. Friend saying:
I said that testing the technology for the scheme would be part of the preparations for implementation. I have also said repeatedly that we shall not go ahead with implementation until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 July 1989; c. 503.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that not one word of that has changed—that my hon. Friend has done no more than reiterate exactly what he said in July?

Mr. Howell: Judging by the rather offensive comments with which the hon. Gentleman introduced his intervention, we have a potential new Chief Whip staring us in the face. Even at 11.30 pm, we can well understand what the Minister is saying and we can also understand the Bill, which says that it is the business of the Football Membership Authority, not the Minister, to put the scheme in position and to satisfy itself as to the technology.
The very fact that the Minister has decided to have a scheme for testing the equipment before he has even set up the Football Membership Authority shows once and for all that the Bill has nothing to do with setting up an independent body and everything to do with making football subject to the disciplines of the Government—whether it likes it or not.

Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again—on two counts. First, nobody has spoken about a system of testing being introduced before the football authority is set up. Secondly, this is not a matter for the Football Membership Authority alone because, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, the Government have given a commitment to the House to the effect that, once the Football Membership Authority is established—subject to the will of Parliament—there will be a further debate in the House on the approval of the scheme by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The prospect of that second important debate was welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman. It will be vital in the light of any findings that Lord Justice Taylor may make and will give Parliament a full opportunity to consider them.

Mr. Howell: The Minister only compounds the confusion. He says that the scheme is the business of the football and licensing authorities, yet before they are even established and have been given an opportunity to decide what action to take, the Minister makes his pronouncement, by one means or another, that he intends to usurp the authorities' powers and judgment and to proceed, which may have the consequence of fees being imposed on football clubs.
I endorse the arguments that have been made about the scheme's technical aspects. We shall welcome an experiment, provided that it is undertaken over a sufficient length of time and embraces all the varied circumstances likely to arise in a football season, so that the system is put to a severe test. We have no evidence yet of the efficiency of the proposed computerised turnstiles. I am advised that six companies submitted tenders for identity cards but that it may be that not one of their systems is satisfactory in meeting the requirements of 20,000 football supporters passing through the turnstiles in the evening to watch an important Cup-tie kick-off.
If tests are to be made at grounds such as those of Liverpool, Spurs or Arsenal they must be undertaken in


typical circumstances. It is nonsensical and irresponsible on a great scale to proceed with the motion and to impose fees before those experiments have been completed and in advance of the authorities being established.
Since the Committee stage, a number of horrendous events have occurred that affect part II of the Bill. The withdrawal of membership cards from anyone found guilty of participating in any of those events is governed by part I. I refer to the disgraceful scenes in Sweden and to the incidents that occurred on the ship taking British supporters to a match there.

Mr. Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion is narrow in its scope, and it cannot be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to rattle through a speech covering much wider matters while attempting to keep himself in order by occasionally using the word "fees" and "licensing authority".

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) has himself strayed from the straight and narrow from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished parliamentarian who knows full well the scope of the motion, and I am sure that he will take the point that has been made both by the hon. Member for Bury, North and by myself.

Mr. Howell: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am making every endeavour to keep within the rules of order. However, I acknowledge, as you obviously do, Madam Deputy Speaker, the political rigidity of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
Whatever view is taken of the Bill by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, it is a matter of serious concern to all that our country's good name was disgraced on the voyage to Sweden to which I referred, in Sweden itself, and in Poland. I have a long list of other incidents that occurred during the summer that beg investigation, but I shall not bore the House with the details at this time. Even if the people responsible for those incidents can be prosecuted and convicted, the names of only five persons will be registered on the computer and prevented from travelling abroad again. After all the trouble in Sweden, Poland and even Iceland, and despite the cost to the Consolidated Fund and to the clubs, only five people may be prevented from travelling abroad in future—yet we all know that hundreds of neo-Fascists disgraced our country's good name. That should be cleared up before the Bill proceeds any further.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be misleading the House again. A few moments ago, he said that the Bill should be delayed and that fees should not be levied or paid because the system is not yet ready to be introduced. He went on to deal with part II of the Bill, which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends consistently supported in Committee and which he acknowledges has some merit and should be implemented. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Does he want the Bill to proceed as it stands or not? He knows full well that it would be impossible to implement part II of the Bill and not part I.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to continue down the path that he has

chosen. The House is debating not the Bill but a narrow motion concerning money matters in the form of the fees that are to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman must limit his comments to that aspect.

Mr. Howell: You will be glad to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my sea voyage to Sweden has ended.
The offences covered by part II inevitably affect the operation of part I, and the question of who pays for the system and the licensing fees are inter-related. Of course we support part II, but as we said throughout the Committee stage, and as was proved in the summer, the proposed scheme is wholly inadequate for its purpose. I repeat that we support it only because it is better than nothing. We are as anxious as the Government to eliminate disgraceful behaviour by British football supporters overseas.
I turn specifically to financial matters. I remarked earlier that six or seven companies have been shortlisted to operate the identity scheme, but I understand that the costs of the initial research will be £250,000. The Minister laughs because the Government are obviously not worried by such sums. The cost to fourth division clubs struggling to exist will be £10,000. In addition, £2·5 million is to be spent on testing the pilot scheme. Today, before even the football or licensing authorities have been established, the Government are imposing £2·75 million in fees in respect of a scheme that may never be implemented and which we believe to be totally inadequate and incapable of dealing with the problems that beset our great sport.
If the Government had any sense they would not have tabled the motion but would have sought to take the whole House with them. They should have allowed a breathing space to await Lord Justice Taylor's report and to allow time for the authorities to be established, so that they could initiate experiments covering every possible set of circumstances likely to arise during a season. For the Government to proceed contrary to those considerations is an act of gross irresponsibility.

Mr. Steve Norris: I could not disagree more with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I welcome the motion itself because, apart from anything else, it is nice to consider a motion that will bring money into the Exchequer rather than cause the Exchequer constantly to dispense it, as is the case with most money resolutions.
As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, reminded the House, the motion is narrow in its scope and relates specifically, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rightly said, to clause 10(2). It concerns the ability of the Exchequer to receive fees from clubs towards the cost of establishing schemes. I sat on the Committee during the latter days before the summer recess and listened to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties as they recounted an appalling catalogue of violence and fear that has for too long been concomitant with football. During the summer I observed the violence to which the right hon. Member for Small Heath has referred, not only abroad but at the start of our own season. No one at Stamford Bridge or anywhere else, especially those responsible for football management, seems to have learnt anything about the problem.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the ground belonging to the club—Chelsea—of which I am an avid supporter. Would he care to tell us what he thinks is not being done at Stamford Bridge that should he being done, to justify the direction of such a colossal calumny at that wonderful club?

Mr. Norris: I shall do so within the specific context of the money resolution, as is appropriate. It is a question of the fees that will be payable for the establishment of a membership card scheme. This, in my view, encapsulates the whole debate that took place in Committee, in which I know that the hon. Gentleman would have loved to participate if he had had time.
As a Chelsea supporter, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the overwhelming majority of those who go to Stamford Bridge do so because they want to watch the match. They do not want any hassle. They do not want their children frightened, or to be beaten up, and they do not want to go to the match alone and virtually armed. They want to take their families. It is precisely to eliminate the inner-city mobs—the small number of people who turn such games into the battleground that they have so sadly become over the years—that the Bill has been drafted.
Conservative Members are under no illusion. It is fine to talk. As ever, we have had fine words from the hon. Member for Small Heath, but, as ever—and as in Committee—we have heard no concrete proposal from the Opposition to tackle the inner-city cancer of violence which, though perpetrated by the few, affects the enjoyment of the many.

Mr. Denis Howell: Contrary to that extraordinary proposition, we have advanced the policy that the thing to do is to target the evil-doers rather than imposing ludicrous restrictions on all the innocent football supporters. Not only did we say that the matches and the wrong-doers could be indentified and targeted—we said in Committee that the Sweden-England match was the first that should be targeted, and that the Government's failure to do so had led to all the mayhem.

Mr. Norris: There was a good deal of anecdotal reportage during what must have been one of the most entertaining Standing Committees on which many of us have ever served, and there is no doubt that those of us who emerged from it—bloody but unbowed—know much more about Sheffield Wednesday in the 1930s, not to mention Accrington Stanley and many other fine clubs and traditions. We heard a brilliant exposition of the importance of identifying the clubs involved——

Mr. Burt: And Millwall Tommy.

Mr. Norris: I am very sorry. Madam Deputy Speaker, that you did not have the opportunity to learn about Millwall Tommy. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—who is in the Chamber, as I expected him to be—brought a lump to my throat when he expounded on the merits or, indeed, demerits of Millwall Tommy. It was a wonderful experience.
Although we have had a homily about the importance of ridding the game of the few offenders—and who in his right mind could disagree with that proposition?—we have been all too short of a mechanism to achieve it. My hon. Friend the Minister, however, is seeking to provide finance for a workable scheme. He wants to be sure that it works

before he introduces it, enabling us to identify those who commit offences at matches and should therefore not be allowed to attend them in future.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath has just drawn attention to the fact that once the cameras are switched on, the hand motions will have to go. I take the point. From now on I shall keep my hands in my pockets. I cannot see any of us getting on unless we do so.
The significant difference between the Opposition and Conservative Members who supported my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee is that the former have been keen to listen to those whom I can only describe as the ill-informed, who have spoken to them, perhaps, on the terraces at Hillsborough and elsewhere. They have flooded us with the cards that were thrust under their noses, requiring little more than a signature, purporting to express views about a matter that they clearly had riot studied. Conservative Members, however, have produced concrete proposals to deal with this major problem.
Sadly, we shall not catch all those who perpetrate the violence. There will, I fear, still be violence on our terraces, even when the scheme is in operation. There is however, a stark contrast between the experience of the average club in the Football League with that of the club formerly presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who entertained us so much in Committee.
On the one hand—whatever the semantics and the fine arguments about the effects on turnover, profit or attendance—we have a ground that is, quite simply, free of violence. That has never been denied. On the other, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—being an assiduous attender at Stamford Bridge—has had the opportunity to observe the inadequacy of the preparations made by other clubs in the league. Their chairmen have now squealed about the tremendous burden and cost to the clubs. The reason why today's resolution is so important is that they have failed to observe their common duty to provide security and facilities which even begin to compare with the ludicrous fees that they have been prepared to pay to players.
If the Bill and the money resolution help to put the balance right and to make football once again a game to which whole families can go without fear and trepidation, it will constitute a major advance against one of the real social evils of our day. On that basis, I commend the resolution unreservedly.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: One of our problems when a Bill is guillotined is that Conservative Members immediately waste the Committee's time, and many issues that we wish to discuss at length are not discussed for that reason. A perfect example is the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who has admitted that he has only ever seen one football match—and that was when the chairman of Luton Town, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), gave him a free ticket to Wembley for the cup final.

Mr. Norris: Rubbish.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman made great play of our proposals. Perhaps he does not know that the Football Grounds Improvements Trust gives £9 million a year to grounds, much of it to prevent violence through the use of


cameras, videos and better policing and technology. The trust was set up following a proposal that I made in the House back in 1974 that a football betting levy scheme be set up to take money from the pools. The pools then voluntarily set up their own trust to provide grounds money out of their profits. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has followed the same line.
We have indeed made concrete proposals, and 99 per cent. of the problems inside the grounds have been solved through the use of better policing and technology. I do not want to widen the debate; I merely wish to answer some of the nonsense poured out by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He has disappeared, as usual. The hon. Gentleman invariably comes out with long perorations—despite knowing nothing about either the Bill or the game—and then immediately disappears from the scene.
Let me return to this narrow motion, which we all expected the Minister to introduce because of the guillotine. As I recall, we were promised an extra day, not after the Bill had been passed, as the Minister said this morning, but before. The Bill was rushed into the House within two or three weeks of the tragic events at Hillsborough. On 15 April, when delaying people at the turnstiles meant that, ultimately, the gates had to be opened and 95 people poured in to their deaths, we thought it was proved that we should have time to give the Bill measured consideration.
As has been said, it was stupidity and madness to introduce the Bill before the Taylor report was finalised and without listening to its recommendations, which we should have studied in a calm and measured way, to assess how the system should be amended so that we can prevent such a disaster happening in the future.
The Minister promised, as I recall, that although a guillotine motion was to be imposed, there would be further full-day debates before the Bill passed into law. We have not had them. The House has been misled. The Minister said in an intervention this morning that there would be a full-day debate on the licensing authority, but by then it will be no good because the Bill will be law.
I am not saying that the Taylor report was held back, as it was done very quickly after the Hillsborough disaster, but it is amazing that it was released the Friday after the House had gone into recess, when many hon. Members had gone on holiday. The media were concerned that there should be some analysis and discussion of the Taylor report, but it has never been discussed in the House. This is our first chance to do so.
Ninety-five people went to their deaths that day, and all sorts of allegations have been made about the police. There have been stories in the press, and some of the police are now being prosecuted. The chief constable offered his resignation, which was not accepted. The disaster was one of the biggest news stories of the year and £10 million has been raised for the dependants of people who died. Councils in Nottingham, Liverpool and Sheffield have been involved. It was one of the biggest events of the year, but it has had little discussion in the House—all we have today is this motion.

Mr. Burt: It is not fair to suggest that the Minister has misled the House. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr.

Ashton) is aware that this is an enabling Bill and that, after it becomes an Act, there will be a period of delay before its measures are implemented. If the hon. Member checks his memory he will realise that the Minister promised that, during that period, there would be a debate on the Taylor report. That has always been contemplated. There has been no change. There is no question of the Minister misleading the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman who now has the Floor does not respond to those comments. We must confine ourselves to discussion of the motion.

Mr. Ashton: Clause 10 provides that the licensing authority may grant a licence
in such form … as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
Everything depends on the whim, fancy and decision of the Secretary of State. The Bill gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State. Once the Bill has been passed, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The motion refers to cash being granted to a licensing authority that has not yet been set up. Will the licensing authority have the power to overrule the police, or are the police still in absolute control, as they were at the time of the Hillsborough disaster? Will the licensing authority or the Secretary of State have the power to tell the police that they do not agree with what they are planning to do? For example, could they have said that the Liverpool supporters should not have been in the small end of the ground and the Nottingham Forest supporters in the large end, as that was one of the reasons for the disaster? Will the authority have the power to overrule the police? It does not say.
Clause 10 says that the conditions surrounding the cash that the licensing authority will have to pay into the Consolidated Fund
may include conditions imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators.
They "may include". Who will decide? If there is a row between the club and the licensing authority, will it be the Secretary of State or the police who make a decision?
I am sorry to have to refer to Hillsborough again, but it is relevant. Since the disaster, the terracing at the Leppings lane end of the ground has been closed off to spectators, who are not allowed access through the gate at that end. That has caused inconvenience to people in the club. I know about that, because I am a shareholder in Sheffield Wednesday, although there is no financial reward for that.
The club has received complaints from people who attend regularly that they have to walk all the way around the ground and that matches have had to be played with that end closed off. The police have not allowed the barriers to be re-erected and they have even said that a match that was due to be played between Liverpool and Sheffield Wednesday on the anniversary of the disaster—by some quirk of the computer—should be brought forward to a Wednesday night in early December. That will cause enormous inconvenience to the Liverpool supporters, who will have to travel over the Pennines in the pitch dark, probably in snow and frost. The match that was scheduled for new year's day has got to kick off at 12 o'clock, which will mean Manchester City supporters having to set off in the dark, in the frost and snow.
The police are continually laying down this hard and fast line. Throughout Britain, spectators tell us that the police reaction has been one of overkill, and has reduced the numbers in football grounds. Spectators had to produce tickets more than 100 yards from the ground at the Arsenal and Liverpool match the other night. Kick-offs have been delayed by 20 minutes, and there is utter confusion on television, the radio and in newspapers about kick-off times. Who is in charge? What is the point of having a licensing authority if the police will still have overall control, and can say that it does not matter what people do, or how many people in the licensing authority represent supporters or clubs, they will decide?
These examples show that the Bill is in complete confusion. When a Bill is guillotined through the House after a disaster has taken place, it is a panic political response to show that something must be seen to be done, and that it does not matter whether it is the right or the wrong thing.
During the debate on Monday, as can be seen from the amendments, there will be three to four hours for discussion before Third Reading, and the Divisions will take up all that time.
A thousand serious questions have been raised this morning and during Committee but they have not been answered, except in a clownish way by the hon. Member for Epping Forrest, who added nothing to the debate, or by the cheap points that were made about Luton Town football club being a great success. These are serious issues about violence and law and order. People are being crushed to death inside football grounds, but the issue has not been analysed and no answers have been given to the House, which has had no chance to debate the subject at the length it deserves.

Mr. A. J. Beith: This motion may seem to be a small detail of the Football Specators Bill. I am sure that that is how the Minister and his supporters see it, but it ought not to be recorded at all—it ought not to be rumbling on as it is. It is another element in pushing through a Bill which ought to await measured discussion on every detail of the Taylor report. It is no use right hon. and hon. Members saying that there will be another debate on whether to bring it into effect. By that stage, everything in this motion and all the details of the Bill will be in print, on the statute book, and incapable of amendment. To change it, we shall have to go through the whole process again, and I am sure that the Government have no intention of bringing in another Bill. It will be a case of take it or leave it with the Football Spectators Bill and this motion, as passed.
That is no way to respond to a serious, high-level inquiry into a monumental disaster which revealed some of the terrible dangers in this measure. The Bill is a lunatic response to serious problems and I am amazed at the capacity of Conservative Members to talk themselves into the belief that the Bill will do some good, when they are just devising some sort of political response to a situation for which they have no answers.
The motion talks about the fees that will have to be paid by the very clubs which will have their gates decimated by the Bill. The fees will be levied on clubs which will lose casual specators. Throughout Britain, people watch football matches on a Saturday but they have no regular

commitment to a particular club. It does not seem likely that they will get involved in membership schemes, but they constitute a significant minority in the attendance at football matches. If those people are taken away, how will the clubs pay those fees, and how will they pay for the cost of improvements to grounds and of additional security? Those are the sort of things for which we should be finding ways and means and, as has been pointed out, the Football Trust is involved in that. That is where the money should be spent, not on financing a licensing authority to carry out this ludicrous scheme.
The third and fourth division clubs which are not paying ridiculous fees for players, do not have fancy sums of money to play around with and those whose gates are the smallest will find the scheme a heavy burden. I see the problem clearly from the standpoint of Berwick Rangers which is in the happy position of being the one League club in England which will not be subject to the scheme. If that club had been included, this could have been regarded as a hybrid Bill and these shambolic proceedings could have been brought to a halt at a much earlier stage. Many third and fourth division clubs are in a position similar to a team such as Berwick Rangers and have to manage on relatively small gates. We hope that the number of people attending will increase, but the gates will not provide the income necessary to carry out the improvements about which we have been talking. Clubs of that type where there is no violence, and no great press of people giving rise even to incidental violence or hooliganism, will have to bear the burden of the scheme, as will innocent spectators.
We do not know whether the scheme will go ahead at all. Yet the licensing fees and the provision for them is being brought before us today. We do not know much about the licensing authority, but if it is like any other body to which Ministers in the Department of the Environment appoint members, such as the National Rivers Authority and its regional advisory committees, it will consist of paid-up supporters of the Government. If we are lucky, people who know about football will pick up one or two places. The way in which Ministers exercise their powers of patronage should be a lesson as to the sort of body to be created. Ministers will say that we must have people on the authority who are committed to the success of the scheme, but they will have to go a long way to find people who know about football and believe in the scheme as there are only a handful of them and they are mainly Conservative Members.

Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that among those who can be counted as the most ardent supporters of a scheme to control membership, which is what we are discussing here, are the police. In stark contrast with some directors of clubs, the police have made it clear from the outset and throughout the Committee proceedings that they believe it necessary to introduce a scheme to control membership and that they welcome participation in it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will confirm that Mr. Alan Dyer, chief constable of Bedfordshire, has commented favourably on the scheme which operates at Luton Town football club, and that colleagues of his in the Association of Chief Police Officers have expressed similar optimistic comments about the scheme.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should talk to the Police Federation which represents the ordinary constables who will have to face the crowds outside the turnstiles when the scheme is introduced. The arrangements at Luton Town must be satisfactory to the police and are not likely to give rise to problems, but anyone who thinks that one can run football on the basis that people cannot watch it will have to think again.

Mr. Moynihan: The Police Federation suggested a scheme far more draconian than that before the House today and sought to extend the Luton scheme nation wide with a ban on away supporters.

Mr. Beith: As I was saying, I do not believe that one can run football in this country as a spectator sport without away supporters.

Mr. David Evans: I must explain to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that only 45,000 people go to away matches per week. We are therefore talking about 10 per cent. of those going to football matches, so the hon. Gentleman's ridiculous statement about people not going to football matches is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Mr. Beith: Those 45,000 people have a right to enjoy their Saturdays. The vast majority of them are not hooligans but people who want to watch football. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's figure. Thousands of football supporters cannot be classified as either home or away supporters and their liberty would be involved if any scheme of this kind were to be pursued.
We are in danger of going far wider than the motion before use. It is extraordinary that in the face of experience this year, the Government should go against all the advice that they have received and carry on with the Bill so that it will be cut and dried in every detail before we have an opportunity to consider the Taylor report. This is another example of the Prime Minister calling the tune—as she does in economic policy—and another example of a Minister who could usefully resign.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I want to correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that the information given and the experiences shared in Committee were not relevant to our discussions. I am a relatively new Member of the House and I was delighted to participate in a Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). They brought a great deal of experience to the Committee. As the House and Committee members will know, I am the president of two small football clubs in my constituency which will not be affected directly by the membership scheme.
I oppose the ways and means motion because it will ensure that clubs such as Leicester City in my constituency will not be able to afford the improvements that are necessary if the game is to survive. The Government should be providing more resources to enable clubs to invest in football rather than fining clubs, which is what the motion will do.
I and other hon. Members fear that the Bill is a forerunner to the possibility of compulsory identity cards

being imposed on all citizens. The evidence submitted to the Minister of State, Home Office by independent organisations made it clear that motions of this kind and the imposition of fees will not pay for the scheme. They have said so in respect of the possibility of compulsory identity cards for all citizens and of the imposition of cards for football supporters.
I share the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) as I believe that the motion should not proceed until the House has had a chance to discuss the recommendations of the Taylor inquiry. I was surprised that the interim report of the inquiry was published as soon as Parliament had risen for the long summer recess. The House should have debated the interim report before coming to this motion. Lord Justice Taylor is one of the country's most eminent judges and the Secretary of State gave him a wide criteria of references. It is possible that Lord Justice Taylor will come forward with recommendations concerning fees. I understand that he has a copy of the Bill and of the Committee's deliberations and he may want to comment on the imposition of fees proposed by the ways and means motion. I urge the Minister to accept that the proper procedure is to await the final report of Lord Justice Taylor to see what he has to say about this important matter and about clause 10. Obviously, if he makes no recommendations it will be safe to proceed.
During the summer recess, I visited the Norman Chester centre in my constituency, which has been referred to by many right hon. and hon. Members. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the centre, but I hope that he will listen to its views about the Bill, particularly about clause 10. Its views would be of much interest to him. The centre opposes the Bill because it does not believe that it will solve the underlying problems that the Government wish to solve.
During my visit, I heard the news that the Department of the Environment had voted the Norman Chester centre a grant of £40,000. I support that Government expenditure, because I believe that it is the only centre of its kind in the western world. It makes a valuable contribution and has assisted hon. Members with briefings and information. The grant of £40,000 has been given to the centre to monitor the effects of the Bill. It is strange that the Government have not worked out their own conclusions about the possible effects of the Bill but have to vote money to outside organisations to monitor what happens. The safest course of action would be to give the grant to the centre, enabling it to monitor an experimental scheme along the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and see whether the experiment works. If the proposed changes are successful. Labour Members will be the first to support what the Government are doing, but it is dangerous to go ahead with the resolution and the Bill without considering those effects, and then to ask an independent organisation to monitor the effects because the Government do not know what will happen.
I hope that the Minister will visit Leicester and meet the Norman Chester centre's director, John Williams, and others, and I hope that he will press the vice-chancellor of the university to provide more facilities and a building from which the centre can conduct its important research. Most of all, I hope that the Government will think again about the resolution, realise that procedurally it is not the


correct way to proceed, and return at a later stage if the report recommends the identity scheme and we shall support the resolution at that time.

Mr. John Carlisle: Once again, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and his right hon. and hon. Friends have followed the chorus of disapproval for the Bill and the resolution. He showed what members of the Committee experienced before and throughout the passage of the Bill—the utter complacency of Opposition Members and, in some cases, of the hierarchy of football management on the Football League and Football Association. They say all is well and that nothing should be done.
In Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and other Opposition Members said that there is nothing seriously wrong with football and that the hooligan problem will go away. After the Stockholm trouble, the right hon. Member for Small Heath was quoted as saying, "We need more arrests." That was his answer to the problem. He did not suggest how those arrests would be made or how the troublemakers and hooligans would be identified. Throughout the Committee proceedings, Opposition Members displayed an abdication of responsibility and utter complacency. They did not accept that we face a serious problem and that only the Government have the guts to face it.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a monstrously inaccurate, almost libellous, statement. In Committee, we said that what has been done inside grounds—I am giving credit to the Prime Minister and her colleagues—has led to considerable improvements. The trouble is the social problem outside grounds, inside shopping centres and motorway service stations and on trains. We said that the people who caused trouble in Sweden, and the people who cause trouble in this country, should be apprehended because they are common criminals dealing with evil. They should be dealt with in the normal way.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall not follow that comment because I know that I should be going against the instructions that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, gave the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's intervention re-emphasises that the Opposition are interested only in delaying tactics. The reason why they may oppose the resolution later in the Lobby is not because of a passionate belief that the system will not work but because they want to block any scheme put forward to correct the problem. That is what Conservative Members found so frustrating about their tactics and those of the Football League management. Had that management accepted some of the recommendations of the all-party football committee—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will remember the discussions that we had years ago—we may not have had to ask the House to pass the Ways and Means resolution.
Regrettably, since the season started, arrests, inside and outside football grounds have been running at about the same level as in the past two seasons. We had some appalling scenes in London a few weeks ago. At the Arsenal-Liverpool match the other night, many police had to be employed to protect not only those going to the

ground but—and this is why the Ways and Means resolution is required—those who live around the ground who have nothing to do with football.
The extraordinarily selfish attitude of Labour members is that the problem affects only football and that it should therefore be addressed only with football in mind. The success of the Luton town scheme, which was so admirably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), is its benefit to the town itself. The spin-off of that scheme is that the game and the stadium have benefited. I should thank the management of Luton town and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield, because my constituents can go about the town in peace on a Saturday afternoon, which cannot be guaranteed in most other towns and cities when a football match is taking place.

Mr. David Evans: My hon. Friend says that one can walk around Luton on a Saturday afternoon free from hooligans, bullies and cowards, but is he aware that at Highbury stadium——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must, yet again, refer hon. Members to what is on the Order Paper. This has nothing to do with the resolution.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that my hon. Friend should not wish to stray away from this important subject. The basis for the fees that we are considering is important for people outside football—a problem that has been completely ignored by Labour Members.
Relevant to the fees that we are discussing and to some news that appeared this morning is the opinion that has been expressed by the Football Supporters Association, which received constant support throughout the Committee's proceedings from Labour members and which has since taken on a rather important role in the argument. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister has acknowledged that it has an important role to play. In this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph, Mr. Rogan Taylor discusses England's prospects in the World cup. It is important that the motion is passed because the World cup is to be played next summer. Mr. Taylor says:
We need to attract the family group, the reasonable supporter to the England trips so that the tickets in Italy go to decent supporters. We want to give them an alternative to travelling with hooligans … We need to isolate and alienate those who might cause trouble so that they can be easily identified and either expelled … or even arrested.
That is relevant to the resolution. We need to get the Bill on to the statute book to support the very sentiments expressed by Mr. Rogan Taylor, which are well-supported by the Opposition, unless they suddenly dissociate themselves from his remarks. The fees are required so that the Bill can pass through the House unimpeded. That is why Conservative Members are delighted that the Leader of the House had the good sense to ask the House to support a guillotine motion to cut short the disgraceful delaying and filibustering tactics that were used in Committee.
The country, the football authorities and the whole machinery of football needs the Bill. That is why it is imperative. The sooner we approve that the money should be made available the better, and the greater thanks we shall receive from those inside and outside football for our courage and our determination to tackle the problem.

11 am

Mr. Tom Pendry: Once more we have had to hear the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) tell us how good the Luton Town scheme is. It is quite irrelevant to the motion and to the Bill itself, because if every club had to adopt Luton Town's financial situation, many of them would be out of business. Luton Town is in terrible trouble because of that scheme.
The hon. Member for Luton, North quoted Rogan Taylor of the Football Supporters Association. The Government should have been listening to precisely such a responsible approach to what would have been Part II of the Bill. The Minister has said many times that the football supporters should be listened to, but why does he not put it on the face of the Bill that they should be represented on the various responsible bodies? He has not done so, so we shall be arguing that the licensing authority and the membership authority should include representatives of the football supporters talking in the responsible way that has been brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Luton, North.
There are three good reasons why we should not be debating the motion this morning. First, we are debating it before Report and Third Reading. It is clear from the Order Paper, that the Government propose to change the character of the Football Licensing Authority. We should not be debating the motion in a vacuum. We should be debating the Government's intentions concerning the powers of the FLA and the money aspect. That is one good reason why we should be debating the money aspect on or after Report and Third Reading.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) pointed out that we have not had an opportunity to debate Taylor's interim report. Because of the timing of that report—we do not blame Lord Justice Taylor, who had to rush through an interim report—we should have been able to debate it as soon as we returned after the recess, and before considering the money resolution. The interim report contains many issues that should be debated and has caused a great deal of confusion in the 92 football clubs.
Thirdly, clause 10 was never really debated in Committee because of the Government's bulldozing tactics. Because they wanted to guillotine our deliberations, we did not have the opportunity to discuss clause 10.
Another good reason that has emerged from today's debate is that, as the Minister said, the Secretary of State can override the recommendations of the football authorities on new technology. We know that six computer companies have been shortlisted. The Minister should listen as I am raising a vital matter. We know how the new Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) behaved in Committee, and he is continuing that behaviour on the Treasury Bench.
If the committee set up by the FA and the Football League to scrutinise in great depth the new technology of the ID-card scheme reaches the conclusion that none of the six companies is capable of introducing a workable scheme, will the Secretary of State overrule the committee's decision? The Minister owes it to the House to say whether the Government will override a committee that has studied the matter in great depth.
The football world welcomes the standardisation of safety rules throughout the country, but the licensing authority would have to consult closely the football authorities and the Football League.
The interim report has created a good deal of confusion and difficulty in the 92 league clubs. Lord Justice Taylor states:
where there are perimeter fences all gates to the pitch should be kept fully open during the period when spectators are on the terraces.
But there are different interpretations across the 92 league clubs. For example, Tottenham has taken all its fences down, another club has the bolts slid out with the gates in place, others remove the gates entirely. We should have debated the Taylor report because the Minister has to address such issues.
Will the Minister spell out whether the licences, once granted, will stay in force for a specified period, as that is not clear from the Bill? In answer to a question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) the Minister said, on 20 June this year, that the FLA would cost some £500,000 to £750,000—presumably over a season. In view of some of the statements that have been made, has that figure changed? How will the cost be shared among the league clubs? We have heard that the average cost to each club could be up to £10,000. We know that some of the smaller clubs could not possibly afford that amount of money. Tranmere, Darlington, Bury, Chester, Stockport and Bristol are all represented by marginal Conservative seats, so we know that hon. Members representing those constituencies will be very worried about their clubs going out of existence because of the Bill.
Since Hillsborough, the FLA has acquired a new dimension and has become a much more important body. It has sweeping powers: it can force clubs to close parts of their grounds, and it can keep football supporters away. There is very little opportunity for the average football supporter to have any say in all this. Appeals can be made within 21 days, but to whom should they appeal? We certainly know that the composition of the FLA would not include a football supporter. I hope that the Minister will say whether football supporters will be represented.
We also know that the terms and conditions imposed by the FLA are not subject to appeal, unlike the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath.
I have tried to keep strictly in order and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been very tolerant. It is absolutely clear that the Government have not timed the resolution very well. We should have discussed it within the whole spectrum of the interim report. Better still, we should have waited until the final report. Since we have such an inquiry into the safety aspect of football, it makes no sense to mess around with interim measures that will not help that great game progress.
I should like the Minister to answer my specific points and some of the valid points which have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Minister knows that the legislation will threaten this great game. I hope that the new Secretary of State will not be like his predecessor, but will view this matter much more clinically and objectively. I hope, therefore, that we will soon see the demise of this legislation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Many points have been raised and, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, many were out of order within the context of this narrow motion. Of course, important questions arise. Without exception, they are covered by a variety of amendments which we will discuss in a detailed and lengthy debate on Monday.
As is customary, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) addressed the motion precisely. I would pick him up only on an inaccuracy. He felt that the motion had been tabled too recently and thus the Opposition had not been given enough time to consider it. I accept that the end of July is one of our busiest times, when the effects of motions are not always observed by every hon. Member, but this motion was first put on the Order Paper on 28 July. I hope that that gave hon. Members the opportunity to consider it in detail.
The ways and means motion is required to enable any fees received by the Secretary of State in respect of the issue of licences by the Football Licensing Authority to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The Football Spectators Bill establishes the Football Licensing Authority. Football clubs will need a licence from the FLA before they can admit spectators to a match designated under the Bill. In addition to its task of ensuring that clubs operate the national membership scheme effectively, Government amendments in Committee have given the FLA the task of advising the Secretary of State on seating accommodation at football grounds and, subject to parliamentary approval in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's final report, additional powers in respect of safety at football grounds.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [AN HON. MEMBER: "No."]

Mr. Moynihan: Let me proceed for a short time on this point.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked the Minister to give way, the Whip said no. Who decides whether the Minister gives way?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): All I heard was the Minister's statement that he would give way in a moment.

Mr. Moynihan: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He is aware that it is best to develop the argument, let it rest and then allow him to intervene. Funding of the FLA was discussed in Committee. I explained then that we had three options: we could recover the full cost from licence fees; we could meet the cost from the Exchequer; or we could arrive at a balance between the two. Having considered this further, we decided that it would be appropriate to meet the FLA costs by a mix of licence fees and grant aid. I give way to the hon. Member for Walton.

Mr. Heffer: I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman why we are pressing forward with the measure at this stage. This question has been raised by my hon. Friends and we need an answer. Why has the motion been tabled at this stage, without our having discussed Lord Justice Taylor's interim report? [Interruption.] I know that the question has been raised a hundred times. I will raise it again. I want to know the reason. These matters are of the utmost

importance, especially to areas such as mine, which suffered great loss of life because of what happened at Hillsborough.

Mr. Moynihan: It is the determined wish of Government to ensure that there is a framework of legislation in place as soon as possible so that any recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's final report that relate to the safety of spectators at football matches can be implemented as soon as possible. If we did not have the framework of legislation in place, we would have to wait later—possibly a delay of a year—before we might he able to implement by law the very important safety recommendations that Lord Justice Taylor may make in his final report.

Mr. Tony Banks: The question is simple: what happens if Lord Justice Taylor says that there should not be a membership scheme?

Mr. Moynihan: I have made the point absolutely clear to the House many times. The whole House will have the opportunity to consider everything that Lord Justice Taylor says. It will be able to consider all the arguments that he puts forward to support his conclusions. It is right for Parliament then and there to consider those arguments in the light of the various views put forward by Lord Justice Taylor. To hypothesise about what may or may not be in the report is not only redundant in terms of the time of the House but totally irrelevant to the motion before us.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Moynihan: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on that point, I will not give way, because it is clearly out of order and beyond the remit of the motion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on the motion, I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Beith: What will happen if Lord Taylor's report gives rise to a feeling that either the terms of the motion or other parts of the Bill need to be altered?

Mr. Moynihan: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the Bill carefully, he would know that we have a framework that does not need to be altered. Any safety recommendation can be accommodated within the Bill's scope. It is a framework to cover a national membership scheme and extensive licensing powers concerning safety, which I very much hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
We estimate that the FLA's annual budget will be between £500,000 and £750,000, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) pointed out. As a non-departmental public body, this will be met from my Department's vote. It is difficult to be more precise about the costs until the safety functions of the FLA have been finalised. A proportion of these costs will be recovered through licence fees, but we do not have in mind any rigid percentage. As the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Bradford, South pointed out, it is important to be flexible in our approach to the amount paid by different clubs and to be cognisant of their ability to pay. We seek to recover about £250,000 from football, which will mean about £2,500 per club.
I speak generally because we need to look at the recommendations on safety which Lord Justice Taylor may make, which will affect the FLA's work. It is important that we continue our discussions on how the amount is to be raised from football, whether by a flat-rate


charge or, more likely, a sliding scale, charging big clubs higher amounts and smaller clubs lesser fees. That has been the view of football authorities in initial discussions with us. I have considerable sympathy for their argument for a sliding scale of fees, but we must discuss the matter further.
On Report on Monday, I shall table a new clause to the Bill which will provide for any licence fees received by the FLA to be surrendered by the authority to the Secretary of State. In accordance with standard Government accounting procedures, the fees will be treated as revenue and the Secretary of State will, in turn, surrender them to the Consolidated Fund. To achieve this, we are debating the ways and means motion this morning. It is by means of that motion that payments of receipts into the Consolidated Fund are authorised.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Harry Barnes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The closure has just been moved. Some of us have been in the Chamber since 9.35 am. I have been here the whole time, except for three minutes when I went out to get information that was appropriate to the debate. We have had no opportunity to contribute to the debate. I deliberately did not intervene, in order to facilitate procedures. The closure motion should not have been moved at this stage. It is part of the general procedural incompetence, mess and fiddling in which the Government have been involved on this whole measure, including the ways and means motion, which we have debated at this stage instead of after Third Reading.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A number of hon. Members have wanted to speak on the motion. The motion is very narrow in terms of debate. I believe that it has been widely debated this morning, with ample time given to it.

Mr. Tony Banks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was quite clear that the Government Whips were actually moving for a Closure. At one point, the Minister was given his instructions by the Whip, who told him not to give way to an hon. Member who was trying to intervene. Fortunately, the hon. Gentleman did give way, which shows that he has a little residual good sense.
I am one of those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber since 9.30 this morning. Only two hon. Members were still rising in the hope of catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask you, with great respect, why you accepted a closure motion? What criterion did you adopt? As only two hon. Members, who had been in the Chamber throughout the debate, were still waiting to speak, should they not have been allowed to make short contributions within order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair does not have to give reasons. However, in answer to an earlier point of order, I did say that this was a narrow motion, which I felt had been thoroughly debated.

The House having divided: Ayes 133, Noes 5.

Division No. 360]
[11.18 am


AYES


Amess, David
Hunter, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Jack, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Janman, Tim


Atkinson, David
Jessel, Toby


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knapman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Maclean, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Bowis, John
Mans, Keith


Brazier, Julian
Maples, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mellor, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Mills, Iain


Burns, Simon
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Burt, Alistair
Moss, Malcolm


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Needham, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Neubert, Michael


Cash, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Norris, Steve


Chapman, Sydney
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Chope, Christopher
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Redwood, John


Couchman, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Cran, James
Riddick, Graham


Davies, Q. (Stamf"d &amp; Spald'g)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Day, Stephen
Rost, Peter


Devlin, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Sackville, Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Shaw, David (Dover)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Fallon, Michael
Sims, Roger


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Steen, Anthony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Stevens, Lewis


French, Douglas
Sumberg, David


Gale, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Goodlad, Alastair
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gorst, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gow, Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Thorne, Neil


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Thurnham, Peter


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Gregory, Conal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ground, Patrick
Walden, George


Hague, William
Ward, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Warren, Kenneth


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wells, Bowen


Hanley, Jeremy
Wheeler, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Widdecombe, Ann


Harris, David
Wolfson, Mark


Hayes, Jerry
Wood, Timothy


Hayward, Robert



Heathcoat-Amory, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heddle, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Howard, Michael



Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)



Beith, A. J.
Tellers for the Noes


Carttiss, Michael
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Joe Ashton.


Fearn, Ronald



Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football Spectators Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received by the Secretary of State under the Act.—[Mr. Lilley.]

Orders of the Day — Children Bill [Lords]

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 10

GRANDPARENTS

'.—(1) Grandparents shall have the right of access to their grandchild before he is taken into care.

(2) Grandparents shall have the right to be present or legally represented at any hearing or inquiry concerned with access to care, fostering and adoption of their grandchild or grandchildren.'.—[Mr. Ray Powell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.
I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting new clause 10 this morning. I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate the necessity for this change in the law and will embrace the new clause. First, I pay tribute to the work of the Lords and Ladies in the other place, where the Bill began, for the tremendous amount of work that they did. I pay tribute also to all hon. Members who served on the Committee, and to the Minister, for all the trouble, effort, energy and time that they have concentrated on the interests of children. Undoubtedly, that displays to the country that Parliament is not only about politics; it is about people. Parliamentarians of all parties care about children, and my speech will show the great number of hon. Members of all parties who have contributed in this Session to the campaign to grant certain rights to grandparents so that they can protect, care for and look after their grandchildren. Having said that about the Minister and the Committee, I must point out that having read in detail the letter that the Minister of State sent me earlier this week, I am not entirely satisfied that what he said is the answer.
I have been campaigning nationally and internationally for grandparents' rights for the past three years. However, we are here today primarily to consider and promote the rights of children, not of grandchildren, parents or great grandparents. As parliamentarians, we are here to protect the rights of children by law.
This morning right hon. and hon. Members will be rightly interested in yesterday's political manoeuvres, the resignations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister's economic adviser and the other positions that were then on offer. Indeed, many hon. Members left the Chamber to get back to their offices or homes so that they could be near their telephones just in case they received a call. We also discussed the Prime Minister's statement on the Commonwealth conference in some detail yesterday, and all that that entailed.
This morning we should forget all about yesterday and about what happened earlier this morning and concentrate on this important Bill. Thousands of grandparents are


suffering right now because of the complexities of the present law relating to child care. We must alter that state of affairs.
Because of the thousands of letters that I have received from grandparents on this subject, I can assure the House that grandparents are disinterested in the Chancellor's resignation, the state of the pound and in the slate for the new appointments. They are daily preoccupied with the grief, suffering, frustration and mental torture in which the law has trapped them. To love, care for and nurture one's grandchild for years and then for that grandchild to be taken away is so devastating that one cannot hope to attract responses to the matters that preoccupy hon. Members. I plead yet again that we spare parliamentary time for those less fortunate than ourselves and that we pass legislation to help them.
We are all aware of one-parent families, the increasing divorce rate and of the innocent children who are forced into the middle of a situation not of their making. We are all aware of the vile, repugnant, nauseating and extensive increase in child sexual abuse. The liberal attitudes of some people tend to condone some of those offences to a certain degree. Innocent children suffer not only from that abuse but from the after-effects and the resulting break-up of the family unit. When the stability of their family life is shattered, they soon realise that everything changes and they seek help. They search for consolation, comfort, protection and real, honest sexless love.
Let hon. Members try to imagine themselves as children again and abandoned for the reasons that I have described. To whom would they turn? Who else but the senior of the family? To whom but the mothers and fathers of one or the other of their own mothers or fathers? Children would not seek out the social services or a guardian. They would not seek anyone from outside their family unit, which is why grandparents should have the legal right to be the first people contacted. Grandparents should be the first to have a legal right to care for, protect and adopt their grandchildren so that we can avoid the escalation of such young people growing into disturbed adults, without stability in their lives and with little hope—unless we change the law.
Let the thousands of grandparents who have written to me have that right. Let the law be changed to stop the heartache, sorrow, stress, emotional unheaval, trauma, grief, mental torture and frustration that the present system inflicts not only on children, whom the Bill seeks to protect, but on their loving, caring and loyal grandparents. Grandparents are crying out with undoubted passion for something that is becoming uncommon. It is rare in this avaricious and mercenary society to find people crying out to be afforded the legal right to give something. Grandparents want to give their love, time, care and devotion. Those feelings can be understood by all who are grandparents or caring, loving and unselfish parents.
We should be grateful that the majority of people still enjoy good family life, but we are here this morning to consider a Bill to help protect family life as we know it and to protect children. That is why it is essential that we support the new clause.
The new clause is essential for all children and grandparents, but it is especially essential for those grandparents who are involved in laborious legal battles

about allowing them access to their grandchildren or establishing their right to care for or adopt those children. The new clause is the only way in which it can be made abundantly clear that we respect grandparents' rights, that we appreciate their profound difficulties and are determined to rectify present injustices.
On Second Reading I referred to a ten-minute Bill that I had introduced on 17 February 1988. I also referred to an early-day motion that I had tabled, which had received 333 signatures of support from right hon. and hon. Members of every political party. Those signatures represented support from more than 60 per cent. of the House. That early-day motion read:
That this House deplores the increasing frequency of grandparents being deprived of the right of access to, care, fostering or adoption of their grandchildren; notes with alarm the attitude of some social services employees; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to give legal rights to grandparents providing immediate right of access before children are taken into care and the right to be present or legally represented at any official hearing or inquiry regarding future access to, care, fostering and adoption of their grandchild or grandchildren.
That early-day motion commanded the support of more than 60 per cent. of the House. Therefore, the majority have made a decision and it is up to the Minister to take due note of what they have signified.
I received letters from Ministers who said that they fully supported the early-day motion, but were unable, because of the protocol of the House, to sign it. If one considers the number of Ministers, shadow Ministers and others unable to sign that early-day motion who pledged their support, it is clear that about 80 per cent. of the House is in favour of what it advocates.
11.45 am
I have referred to that early-day motion because new clause 10 follows, word for word, what it said. We are not allowed to discuss early-day motions, but they are referred to at length in the press, which reports on how many hon. Members sign various motions. The fact that my early-day motion received such overwhelming majority support means that it is imperative for the Minister to accept the new clause. I am not interested in receiving letters from him regarding meetings that he has had with the Opposition Front Bench team. I want him to acknowledge the wish of the majority in this House and I hope that he will embrace new clause 10 in the body of the Bill. When it becomes law the grandparents of this country will be so glad to receive the help and the assistance for which they are crying out.
The campaign for grandparents' rights has continued for more than 10 years and, apart from myself, it has also been conducted by other Opposition and Conservative Members. The problem has not recently been thrown at us; it has been outstanding for more than 10 years. That problem could be solved by new clause 10 and I trust that the Minister will give us a pledge that he will embody it in the Bill.
Only yesterday Mrs. Hughes from Hertfordshire was lobbying the House on grandparents' rights. She has no access to her grandchildren, but she thought that she should because she had reared one child for 10 years. There was, however, a dispute in the family and the daughter decided that her mother should not have right of access and took the child away. Mrs. Hughes told me that she had saved £6,000 for her retirement. She is now a widow and she cannot afford the legal fees for solicitors.
She asked me for advice to see whether she could apply for legal aid because she wanted to go to the courts to try to gain access. Her problem encapsulates what new clause 10 is all about. We can all imagine what she is going through after 10 years of trying to see her granddaughter, but being refused her wish.
My office is only just up the Stairs above the No Lobby and I could fetch bundles of heartbreaking letters that I have received. Some people have written to tell me that they have lost their wives through suicide because they were denied access to their grandchildren. We cannot allow this to continue any longer.
The Minister may quote amendments to the Bill where he has included the word "grandparent" and for that I am extremely grateful. That inclusion, however, does not cover the problem of immediate access by grandparents. That is especially important in cases where the wife and husband have been killed in a car crash but the two children in the back of the car survive. One child may be in hospital in intensive care and the other child may be released. That child, however, is not released to its grandparents, but is sent, after one week of probationary care, to social sevices. Social services staff immediately take that child into care and appoint a guardian. In no time at all grandparents have not only lost their own son or daughter, but have lost their grandchild to social services.
As a result of new clause 10 grandparents in such cases would be contacted immediately either by the police, social services or any other local or national Government officer. They would be contacted first to see whether they were able to take care of their grandchildren. They should be the ones called on to look after their grandchildren.
An organisation called LOGIC—the love of grandparents in conflict—was established about 12 months ago. I am glad to say that it was created by grandparents throughout the country to advise grandparents on how to get legal advice—some of it free, some of it at substantially reduced rates. I do not want to criticise the two lawyers who serve as Ministers on the Bill, but many of my constituents who are miners made redundant in the past 10 years find themselves looking at their bank balances to see whether they can knock on the doors of barristers and solicitors who charge high fees. Although grandparents want to extend their rights to look after their grandchildren most are prevented from engaging the services of solicitors for financial reasons. As a result, they lose their rights to their grandchildren.
A letter in the Manchester Evening News in September 1989 referred to a grandparent who had criticised other grandparents for demanding rights of access to their grandchildren or the right to adopt them. The letter says:
I feel deeply sorry for Realistic Grandmother of Wythenshawe, who says that grandparents are interfering old men and women who should not have "rights" to their grandchildren.
I have five lovely grandsons, aged 16 down to three, and I do not know what I would have done without them, particularly since I lost my husband three years ago.
What a lot of love and happiness this embittered old grandmother is missing. Does she know what it is like to feel lonely and depressed, then suddenly the phone will ring and I hear one of my grandsons say, "Hello grandma"? It's music in my ears.
They share their news with me, be it good or bad, and I share mine with them.
She says she has not seen her grandson for 11 years and does not particularly wish to, but please, before it is too late,

get to know him and get that chip off your shoulder. That is why your family leave you alone, but you don't know what you are missing … grandchildren are jewels in your crown.
That is typical of thousands of letters about grandparents that I have received.
When we realise the pain of separation felt by grandparents we feel a responsibility as parliamentarians to do something about it. It is no legal fault of grandparents that they should be deprived of their grandchildren.
During the recess I had the great good fortune to go to Barbados to represent the House at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's 35th annual conference. I went with many colleagues from both sides of the House, and there we discussed in great depth the rights of children. We were not out there for a holiday. We held an important debate on Thursday 12 October entitled:
What can Commonwealth Parliaments do individually and collectively to promote the survival and rights of children?
This was not the Commonwealth conference about which we heard a statement from the Prime Minister yesterday. It was a conference at which everyone agreed about what we should be doing about the survival and rights of children. All the representatives applauded the efforts being made in their countries and I took the opportunity to go to the rostrum to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom branch about what we are doing in Parliament. I underlined the fact that the Government have brought in the Children Bill, and that it was a lengthy Bill involving many changes and a great deal of protection for the people of this country.
Naturally, I mentioned grandparents and what the laws here mean to them—they deprive them of their rights of access and adoption. Commonwealth representatives at the meeting were appalled to hear that grandparents here are not recognised as the seniors of the family unit, to be consulted before any action is taken by anyone else, including the state.
A representative from the Cook islands, who was the islands' Prime Minister last year, told me later the same day that children are treated as flowers there. He said that grandparents are consulted on each and every issue to do with the family. When there is a dispute, the family unit is called in to resolve it. The Cook islands may be small but the people there obviously nurture their children well. It is time that we looked at the example of such countries and recognised that they have always regarded grandparents as the most important members of the family, to be consulted before anyone else.
The Commonwealth conference hosted an interesting and open debate to which many members contributed, and it would be wise of the Minister, before he proceeds any further with the Bill, to read extracts from the speeches and decide whether we can copy some of the Commonwealth countries that may look to us for guidance but to which perhaps we should also look for guidance. I was surprised to hear the Speaker of the Barbados Parliament tell the conference that 35 per cent. of the children born in Barbados are in one-parent families. That causes problems, but the people there still enjoy family unity and still recognise grandparents as the senior members of the family. It is essential that we recognise that same principle.
12 noon
At the beginning of my speech I outlined the support that I have received. The Government should clearly understand that the law must be changed. It is time that they looked in detail at the proposals contained in the new clause. We know that we have to protect children and I recognise that we must also protect the rights of parents. However, it is sometimes necessary in the interests of children to protect also the rights of grandparents.
In the three-year struggle to have this burning problem recognised, people from all sides of the political spectrum, not only in the House and in the other place but throughout the country, have campaigned with me. First, I introduced a 10-minute Bill and then an early-day motion. That was followed by a national lobby of grandparents and following that, grandparents from all over the country held a meeting in Westminster hall. The meeting was addressed by 25 hon. Members representing all the parties in the House. I am sorry that the compassion and the pleas of those hon. Members were not recorded. It is a shame that television cameras were not present in Westminster hall for that meeting.
I look forward to television cameras coming into the Chamber. I do not know whether they will be able to take head and shoulder shots of me or whether I will have to stand on the Bench in order to be caught by the camera. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has said that if I were to speak from the Dispatch Box I would need to stand on an orange box in order to be able to see over it. When I speak about my size I always think about Lloyd George. He had other problems although they may not have been connected with grandparents. He was very short but he was dynamic. I expect that he was a grandparent.
I continued my campaign by means of petitions, the first of which contained 12,000 signatures and asked for a change in the law. There was a further petition containing 8,000 names. I have also had Adjournment debates. Hon. Members know the ritual. Anyone who wants to promote something has to go through all the processes to get parliamentary support and approval to try to get the Government to understand that there is a problem that needs to be solved. I continually raised the issue in business questions and spoke on Second Reading of the Bill. The Government pulled up stumps at 1.30 on Wednesday morning, but if they had not I had enough material to keep the House going until the date set for the new Session. Perhaps the Government were aware of that and that was what made them introduce the guillotine.
I appreciate the work that has gone into the Children Bill and I am sure that all hon. Members appreciate the work carried out by the Committee. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee for the major concessions that they have won from the Government, such as the inspection of private schools, safeguarding runaways, registration of day care facilities, registration and inspection of private children's homes, restrictions on local authority powers to remove children from home without a court order and limited reform of the court system. Those are all excellent measures and I pay tribute to the Opposition team for ensuring that those concessions were made by the Government.
I applaud the Government for recognising that they were advancing the rights of children by paying attention to those matters. I should be pleased if the Minister would now rise in his place and say, "Yes, the hon. Member for Ogmore can have new clause 10. We will put it on the statute book." Grandparents from all parts of the country—indeed, 10 million votes—are out there waiting to support such a measure. I hope that the Minister can give his support.
I have a great deal of further material on which I wish to speak. I realise that other hon. Members may wish to speak, but I wish to draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to an important matter on which I have made notes—the rights of grandparents. Society advocates that many groups of people have rights, most of which are inherent in the law of the land. We have laws to guard against discrimination on grounds of race or creed. We have unions to fight for workers' rights. Other groups, rightly, fight for more thought to be given to the rights of the handicapped. The laws governing the rights of children and parents are constantly evolving. Nearly every section of society is covered by laws guarding its rights against injustice. However, one vulnerable and defenceless group is sadly neglected by the law and by society. Grandparents are used, abused, forgotten or simply not considered. Yet they are the bedrock and back-up system of the family. They hold a unique place in everyone's heart and mind, either through their memory if they are dead, their presence if they are alive or a sense of regret and loss if they have never been known. They are the cord holding the different branches of the family together, keeping brothers, sisters, grandchildren and cousins, in touch with each other.
Grandparents are the safety net over which family life is played out, cushioning it against the knocks of living and loving. Their children bring their problems to them. Most often, that involves the grandparent taking an active part in finding a solution. Who looks after the children while mother has to go out to work? Who steps into the breach and keeps the household running smoothly when a new addition to the family arrives? Who shops, cleans, bakes, sews, knits and gardens to help out busy parents with young children? It is the grandparents.
Until 30 years ago, grandparents lived next door or close to a daughter, son or other close relative. Sometimes a street would be inhabited by many members of one family, providing a close sense of security and protection for everyone. If the grandparents did not have their own home, they usually lived as part of the family with one of their children. Thankfully, some still do. The effect was that each generation depended upon, cared for and loved each other. Among all the roles and relationships of mother, father, daughter, son and in-law, the overriding interests are those of grandparents and grandchildren.
Thousands of books and articles have been written on parenthood and the special bond between parent and child, but equally powerful in sweetness and intensity is the relationship between grandparent and child. It has a special kind of sacredness which has to be experienced.
I wish to refer to a book on grandparents' rights. Grandparents who have legal problems, as well as those who do not, should be invited to read and digest it. It explains to them some of their rights. It explains some of the rights that perhaps the Government would be wise to spend billions of pounds advertising instead of spending that money on privatisation. Grandparents should be


acquainted with their legal rights and with the book that has been produced and edited by Jill Manthorpe and Celia Atherton. I hope that grandparents will obtain copies of it. It is promoted and backed by Age Concern. If grandparents read the book and if solicitors and others are prepared occasionally to give their time to advise grandparents, without asking them for the money that they have saved throughout their life, we might be able to establish the rights that I am seeking. If the clause is agreed to, however, grandparents would be entitled automatically to take up their rights through the courts.
As I have said, I prepared enough notes to allow me to make a three-hour speech. I did so because I have read and taken note of grandparents' claims. I have visited them. I have met them in the House and I have listened generally to their tragic circumstances. It is only by taking those steps that we in the House can recognise that the law needs to be changed.
It is not right for grandparents to have to travel miles to look from behind a shelter in a school yard just to have a glimpse of their grandson or granddaughter. It is not right for us to allow the law not to extend the right of access to grandparents, the right to be able to adopt and the right to be able to care for their grandchildren before the social services or other bodies allow them to be adopted.
I have a nephew. My sister died when she was 28 years of age and my nephew was brought up in my home with three of my brothers and four of my sisters, not as a nephew but as a son. He recently celebrated his 50th birthday. When I was congratulating him on reaching half a century I told the guests at the birthday party, "My younger brother is now 50." At 50, he broke down and cried. He did so because he had never thought of himself as part of a family unit. He had always realised that he had no mother at the age of three and that we had taken him in and cared for him. It was because he was loved and cared for in a family unit that he became a responsible and proper father, and he is now a grandfather.
People outside this place who have not had the love and care of a family unit because the law does not allow grandparents to look after them are becoming adult citizens daily. In addition, there are their children, their grandchildren and future grandchildren. Unless we change the law and allow grandparents automatically to have the rights for which I am asking, we shall deprive many people. I appeal to the Minister through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with all the passion that I can muster, to accept that there is a need for a direct change in the law. The clause should be supported unanimously to ensure that grandparents have rights. I hope that the Minister will concede and ensure that the new clause is written into the Bill. In the interests of all grandparents, I plead for a change in the law.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): If ever there were an argument for having in the House hon. Members of grandparent age, we have just heard it. None of us can have failed to be moved either by the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) or by the clear evidence that that speech was the product of an enormous amount of work. All of us owe him a very great debt.
I have absolutely no doubt that, over the past 20 or 30 years, in our anxiety to provide substitute parental care for

many of our children, we have allowed the pendulum to swing far too far away from the natural family as that concept has been experienced in most countries of the world throughout history. Lamentably, the proposition that grandparents should, almost as matter of course, be last in the queue to be considered as suitable people to have children placed with them has held sway in far too many of our social services departments for far too long.
I have one reservation about new clause 10(1). I had in my constituency a really horrendous case in which a father had been sexually abusing his children for a very long time with the connivance and active assistance of his parents. The proposition that grandparents should have automatic right of access to a child before it is taken into care needs to be qualified in the light of such cases.
I hope that there will emerge from this brief debate an acceptance of the clear need to reinstate the position of grandparents. It should be an essential part of any social worker's training that he or she should be expected—indeed, required—to consider whether grandparents are not the best people to look after a child who needs to be taken into care. I have heard many stories of parents—often because they have formed an oppressive and unattractive liaison which is bad for the children—falling out with the grandparents and yet having their view as to whether the children should be allowed access to their grandparents and vice versa regarded as some kind of determinant.
One of the achievements of the Children Bill has been to re-establish—perhaps even to establish for the first time—the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. That is a powerful instrument for ensuring that parents who have taken against their own parents, are not allowed to dominate the argument about whether the grandparents should have full rights.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is on a very important point—perhaps more important than any other in this argument. I have a number of constituency cases directly affected by these matters and. tragically, the number seems to be growing. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can automatically assume that, if the grandparents are normal wholesome people—if I may put it that way without seeming to be patronising—the child can only benefit from a relationship with them? Does he agree that that should be conceded, even it the parents are being obstructive for the reasons that he so graphically described?

Mr. Rowe: I agree in principle. It is difficult to define "normal, wholesome people", because there are perfectly natural breaches between grandparents and parents on grounds of, for example, totally different religious or cultural beliefs. In those circumstances, and depending on the age of the child and how long the parents and grandparents have been estranged, and even on whether the grandparents are living in a different country, discretion must be retained.
The hon. Member for Ogmore is right to press for greater recognition by society of the importance of grandparents and of their rights vis-a-vis their grandchildren, but I have reservations about subsection (1), believing that grandparents' rights should not be automatic. However, I should like to see reversed the present situation whereby social services departments are entitled to take a


decision which the grandparents, if they do not agree with it, must fight tooth and nail, against overwhelming odds. Very often, as we have heard, they lose that fight.
I argue that, through regulations or a code of conduct, or perhaps by an amendment being made to the new clause introduced in another place, social services should be required to explain to grandparents and to the court why they hold the view that the grandparents are not the right people with whom to place the child.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I appreciate the amount of work that my little friend has put into the problem, with a view to persuading the Government to do the right thing by children and grandparents. I have worked with my hon. Friend on that problem for a number of years. I watched carefully the faces of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench as they listened to my hon. Friend's impassioned plea. It was impassioned because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore lives with the problem night and day, 24 hours a day. We discuss it together regularly. If one goes into his little office, one can see all the information that is stacked on his desk, on chairs and on the floor, relating to the problems of grandparents.
I welcome the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore stands as a Labour Minister at the Government Dispatch Box—though I shall not be here to see it, because I am retiring at the next general election.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am most disappointed to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will not be found in his place after the next general election. However, I hope that the message will go out to all concerned that, if he is not in this House, it only means that right hon. and hon. Members will have to walk down the corridor to see him speak in another place.

Mr. Haynes: I shall ignore my hon. Friend's remark, but I look forward to seeing on television my little hon. Friend standing at the Dispatch Box and fighting for another cause. I hope that that cause will not be grandparents but that the Minister will tell the House today, "The hon. Member for Ogmore can have his new clause 10." Nevertheless, I hope to see in the televised proceedings of Parliament my hon. Friend speaking as a Minister in a Labour Government. I shall provide the orange box on which he will probably have to stand if the television cameras at least are to be able to catch sight of him.
Let me say at the outset that I have an interest to declare. I am a grandparent. Many of the 650 Members of the House are grandparents, even Mr. Speaker himself; I have often talked to him about his grandchildren and mine, for any hon. Member can approach Mr. Speaker and have a private discussion with him.
I remember a day when Mr. Speaker beckoned me to the Chair and asked me whether, at 4 o'clock that afternoon, I would go upstairs and act as a grandparent, because he had 24 little toddlers in to tea. I said, "Of course I will." At five minutes to four he beckoned to me and pointed upstairs, and I said, "It's all right, I'm going." I went upstairs and found 24 children seated round a long

table, having tea with Mr. Speaker's good lady. They were having a whale of a time. That is the kind of thing that goes on outside this place—deep in the community.
As I have said, I shall be retiring at the next election. My wife Vera and I are preparing for that day right now. We are moving to a new home, across the road from our daughter, son-in-law and two beautiful grandchidren—Anna, 10, and Edward, eight. I am down here all the week, and the only contact that I can have with those two grandchildren is by telephone—with a bit of luck. I only get to see them when I go back at the weekend.
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, when Vera and I see those kids, we melt, because it is so beautiful. I must explain why I feel like that, because I am trying to express a view on behalf of the grandparents of this nation. They feel, justifiably, that they are getting a raw deal. It comes over loud and clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has said, when we have meetings both inside and outside this place. I well remember the meeting in the Grand Committee Room to which my hon. Friend referred: it was plainly solid with grandparents, who were pleading with the 25 Members of Parliament who found the time to go and listen to their views and to those of my hon. Friend because not everyone could do so.
Before I came to this place I was a magistrate for 15 years, and I served a fair amount of that time in the juvenile court. I saw the pleas of grandparents being completely ignored, because the law was not on their side. That is why we are appealing as we are: we wanted to do it the other day and did not get the opportunity, but we are doing it this Friday morning. We followed the debate on the Football Spectators Bill—because it was very important—but we were dying for this debate to start so that we could express our views. We have been holding ourselves back: we knew what we wanted to say, and what should happen about the Bill.
There are millions of grandparents out there looking for a fair deal and hoping that the Minister will say the right thing this morning. I know that the Minister has passion within him, although he can be a hard man—as he needs to be from time to time. There is a bit of softness and feeling in the bones of that Minister.
I hope that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and give us what we are pleading for, as it is essential. I realise that there is a time factor here and that there are other things to discuss, but I wanted to express my view and to say where I stand on the important issue of grandparents. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me that opportunity.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I think that I am the first person to speak in this debate who is not a grandparent. I hope that I have not insulted the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) by that remark.
I have found this debate very moving, particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I know how passionately he cares about this issue. I have had some correspondence with him about individual cases in my constituency. Many other right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their concern about this issue and would have liked to be here today. Many of them were here at 1 o'clock in the morning a few nights ago, and they were ready to speak at length on the new clause.
I will mention one of them—my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—who is the youngest grandparent in this place, I think. 1 know that he feels passionately about this issue. He is a couple of years younger than I am and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore would need an orange box to stand on at the Dispatch Box, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield would need a stepladder, as he is a good deal shorter.
I shall take up one issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore about the new clause. He knows that I have a background in social work. On many occasions I have had to take children into care. While I do not take exception to what he said about certain people who work in social services, I assure him that I know that the vast majority of practising social workers would turn first to the solid, ever-present figure of a grandparent if they have to take a child into care.
I can think of many cases when I have turned to grandparents straight away when children come into care. They have cared for the children in all sorts of circumstances. I have come across so many cases where grandparents have been the only solid, consistent figure in some children's lives, and that is why I support the new clause.
Apart from my professional interest in the subject, as a Member of Parliament I have come across many constituency cases in which the treatment of grandparents by local authorities and the courts left a great deal to be desired.
In the debate on the guillotine motion yesterday, I mentioned briefly that I had fought for a woman who is the grandparent of a six-year-old child. She brought up the child, was the only figure in the child's life and loved and cared for him in the absence of a mother. Then he was adopted, and she had no rights. She could not get legal aid, because she had no right to be heard in court. I am angry about that. The law is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore knows of more cases, as he is very involved with this issue.
The law is wrong. I appeal to the Minister to take on board the consensus in the House on the Bill, and particularly on new clause 10, and to ensure that it is incorporated into the Bill.

The Minister for Health (Mr. David Mellor): The speech by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) reflects his great commitment to this issue, which I recognise. I join those right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to him for the strength of his convictions and the eloquence with which he has put them across. Other hon. Members have rightly paid respect to his contribution and to the emotional strength of the case.
There is no doubt that, when the relationship between grandparents and children works well, there can be few better relationships. I speak as a father of young children; coincidentally—I did not arrange it because of this debate—they are spending the weekend with their grandparents, so I am well aware of the benefits of the relationship.
I do not seek to challenge the essential planks of the hon. Member for Ogmore's case, which are that the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren is vital—when it works well it has so much to offer both sides—and that the law on grandparents, as it was before the Bill, was unsatisfactory, as it did not recognise what grandparents' rights should be. I have no real quarrel with the hon. Gentleman but I will remind him of something

that used to be said to me in court on the rare occasions when I was on a winning wicket but going on a little more about my case than I needed to. The judge would say, "You are pushing at an open door."
The hon. Gentleman has not recognised how far we have taken on board already, in the work done on the Bill, the points to which he attaches importance. We have made changes to the law on grandparents to which, because of his assiduity and persistence in bringing forward his private Member's Bill, he is entitled to make some claims of authorship. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the Bill, rather than finding cause for continued dissatisfaction he would find cause for real pride in the shared achievements.
I want to persuade the House that the impact of the Bill is marked in relation to grandparents and other close relatives. If there is any hedging or equivocation, it is only because it is necessary for us to recognise that there are some bad grandparents just as there are bad parents. The court has to take account of that possibility. However, we wish to dwell, for obvious reasons on good grandparents rather than bad.
Just as the Bill is about protecting children from bad parents, we also need to protect them from bad grandparents. We must not give grandparents rights that in some instances parents would not enjoy, just because there is, rightly, a sentimental attachment to the relationship. We have taken on board and accept the hon. Gentleman's central point that the legal rights and entitlements of grandparents must be improved, and we have improved them. I shall explain how we have done that, because many hon. Members are interested.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mellor: I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said. It may be more advantageous if I set out the heart of the matter and if the hon. Gentleman then wants me to give way I will. There comes a time at which one has to concentrate on line-by-line issues that translate our good will into effective action. I am anxious that the hon. Gentleman should not under-estimate how much has been done.
The present law is unsatisfactory. In the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986, grandparents are made parties in care proceedings where they can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the child. However, they cannot under the Act obtain anything like the range of orders that we would like to see. For example, they cannot participate in access proceedings by asking for an access order. They cannot participate in parental rights proceedings or obtain custody on the discharge of a care order. In future care proceedings, the court of its own motion will be able to give the care of the child to a grandparent rather than to the local authority—that is, it will be able to make a residence order. That is a major step forward.
The court can also make a contact order under the Bill, even if no application has been made. That links up with the requirements laid on the court to consider specifically the contact arrangements planned by the authority and to invite the parties to the proceedings—who could include grandparents—to comment on those arrangements. In other words, in future there will be plenty of scope for grandparents who can demonstrate a reasonable


connection with or interest in the child to make a case for a contact order, which is the new terminology for an access order.
Where the child is not in care, part II of the Bill very much widens the circumstances in which grandparents may apply for contact. The hon. Member for Ogmore described cases where grandparents were standing outside a playground watching a child play because that was their only contact with him. I too consider that unacceptable, if the grandparents were people that a court would want to have contact with a child. Part II of the Bill widens the circumstances in which grandparents may apply for contact.
In allowing them to do so, we recognise the close bonds of affection that ususally exist between children and their grandparents. For the first time, we have recognised in an overt way that it can be in the best interests of a child to maintain contact with grandparents, even if there is parental opposition—for example, on the break-up of a marriage. For the first time, a court will be able to deal with those issues and maintain a contact even against parental opposition. It is a great step forward. In so far as I have any troubles or concerns about the debate this morning, I feel that the hon. Member for Ogmore has not realised how far he has pushed open the door. The door has been pushed wide open due to the impact of the hon. Gentleman and others on those of us who have been working on the detail of the Bill.
At present, a grandparent's right to apply for access is arbitrary and restrictive. The Bill provides that grandparents may apply for a contact order at any time. The only proviso to screen out undesirable circumstances is that they must first get the court's permission by showing that they have a good reason. Some may ask why that is necessary. The reason is that there may be some instances where parents are justified in preventing or limiting contact between children and their grandparents. Some grandparents may attempt to interfere in the relationship between their children and grandchildren. Given that we are dealing with vulnerable children—this is, rightly, a child-centred Bill—the court should have the ability to satisfy itself that there is a good reason for doing so.
I should like to make one thing absolutely clear. I and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has had to go out for a moment but has been following the debate with great interest, are in no doubt whatsoever that in cases where grandparents have maintained a close relationship with the child, permission is unlikely to be much more than a formality. That is how we would wish it. That is a major advance, in which the hon. Gentleman can take pride.
He should take pride in that achievement, rather than feel dissatisfied. I really do not see how we could go very much further without running the risk of giving grandparents rights that we do not give to parents or other close relatives. Just as there are circumstances in which grandparents have to look after a child whose parents are tragically killed, so there are circumstances in which an elder brother or sister has had to do so. Other close family links should also be encouraged. In grouping grandparents with a range of other close relatives, one is not demeaning

the position of grandparents. One would be in danger of demeaning other close relationships if one gave grandparents more rights than certain other key people.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps in a moment.
The Bill cannot be criticised for referring to close relatives rather than singling out grandparents. Although it greatly widens the rights of grandparents, the hon. Gentleman may have missed some of its impact on those rights. My only criticism of the hon. Member for Ogmore is that he many not be aware of the good provisions in the Bill, which he provoked us into making.

Mr. Powell: When grandparents apply to put their case to a local authority hearing, the people conducting the hearing say, "You are not entitled to be legally represented." If they take the matter to court, they are told, "The court will not recognise your rights as grandparents." From the cases with which I have dealt, I understand that that is the problem with the law. New clause 10 suggests that they should be offered automatic rights of representation. I am not trying to convince the hon. and learned Gentleman that the law should be changed to give grandparents more protection than parents. I am pleading for grandparents' rights to be represented and for the court to be able to make a decision.
I am saying that the law should be clear, so that grandparents can interpret it without consulting barristers or solicitors. The law must be plain, so that people can understand it without continually having to consult the legal profession. I am pleading that new clause 10 should be accepted. The Minister's argument as to why it should not be accepted falls when we consider the requests that have been made by grandparents and the difficulties that they have experienced.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who mentioned social care cases, will confirm what I am saying. Unless the new clause is accepted, that will continue to happen.

Mr. Mellor: I cannot help feeling——

Mr. Ray Powell: I am sorry that my intervention was so long.

Mr. Mellor: I do not mind long interventions. Happily, after a few problems on Tuesday night, we are discussing the Bill properly, with hon. Members giving their views with sincerity and vigour.
I am concerned that the hon. Member for Ogmore should not under-estimate the extent to which his case has been met by the Bill. He was primarily concerned about care proceedings, but he made some wider points, which is why I described the extent to which grandparents will benefit from the open-door policy of the Bill, which will allow them to apply for all relevant orders in most proceedings relating to their grandchildren.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Mellor: No. My hon. Friend should allow me to answer the intervention, and I am halfway through doing so. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I shall allow my hon. Friend to be helpful in a moment, but first


I shall try to be helpful. In so far as it is necessary for someone to sweep up after that, I shall allow my hon. Friend to do so.
Care proceedings are the subject of the new clause. Under the Bill, for the first time, grandparents will be able to apply to appear before the court. The court's permission will be necessary to screen out undesirables. There may be grandparents with criminal convictions whom none of us would say should be given locus standi.
The grandparents about whom the hon. Member for Ogmore is concerned will be able to apply for a residence order—what used to be called care, custody and control of a child. That will discharge any care order. Grandparents can also apply for a contact order, with the court's permission. Even if the child went into care, they could have right of access determined by the court, and therefore one could not interfere with it. That is so much better than the position under the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 and a sign of how far forward we have moved.
In future care proceedings, a court of its own motion will be able to give the care of a child to a grandparent rather than a local authority. The court will be able to say, "Something needs to be done about this child. It is better that he goes to the grandparents than into local authority care." That is a major step forward.
The problem with the new clause is that it has an unintended effect, in that it does not sit well with the Bill. That is why I could not accept it, even if I thought that the principles were right. It is much better that rights of access are sorted out by a court. It will be able to look at the grandparents' influence as an alternative to the care order which is being sought.
I have regarded the new clause—I hope rightly—as a way of bringing these issues sharply into focus. Sadly, it is not possible to include it in the Bill because it does not dovetail in. The new clause has given me the opportunity to say that the position on care proceedings, like any other involving grandparents' rights, has been so transformed that the hon. Member for Ogmore should be able to walk happily out of this court—I should have said House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has never had to walk into a court. I am getting back into my bad old ways. The hon. Members for Ogmore and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) can leave the House feeling that they have participated in a great step forward for grandparents' rights. I am sorry if I bang on about it, but I should hate it if the hon. Member for Ogmore should fail at the moment of his triumph to realise how considerable that triumph is.
Lest I have left anything out, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

Mr. Devlin: My hon. and learned Friend has dealt in his usual comprehensive way with almost every point. I wanted to draw attention to a clause providing for rules of court to be made. One provision is that rules should be made about a court's ability to say who is and who is not a party to the proceedings and to give them legal representation. That would extend to grandparents. The precise objection of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—about grandparents turning up at court and being told that they have nothing to do with the proceedings—has been met entirely.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He points to another excellent reason why the hon. Member for Ogmore should feel well pleased.
There is other work for us to do, so I shall conclude. I think that the Opposition Front Bench support my view that in the Bill we have substantially advanced the cause of grandparents and other close relatives in terms of their ability to participate in hearings about the future of a child whom they love, and to be entrusted with heavy responsibility if that is right in the circumstances. That is a major step forward. If, after the Bill becomes law, and after taking such a great step forward, it appears that there are still deficiencies, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not find many people who would object to further refinements.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. I could continue speaking about this matter for a great deal longer, but there would be no advantage to doing so. I hope that he recognises that there have been considerable advances—indeed, a. transformation of the rights of grandparents—and the hon. Gentleman has played his part in achieving them. The Bill takes a substantial leap forward, but if, with the benefit of hindsight, it becomes clear that further steps need to be taken, that should more readily he possible because of the great tide of sympathy on this issue. We have gone a great way forward, and I cannot think of any hiatuses. Almost all the examples give by the hon. Gentleman are met by the Bill.
I have no objection to the thrust or the hon. Gentleman's case, but I believe that his points have been incorporated in the Bill. I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press the new clause, but should he do so, and for reasons that I am sure he will understand, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to accept his new clause.

Mr. Ray Powell: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Powell: I regret that you were not in the Chair earlier, Mr. Speaker, so that you could listen to all the debate, but I assume that you were listening elsewhere. I have been fortunate in that you have often been in the Chair when I have spoken about grandparents' rights. You have been most sympathetic in granting a great deal of time to me to elaborate on the issues involved.
In my opening remarks I referred to an early-day motion that was supported by 333 hon. Members—the 11th highest total of signatories since 1926. If the Minister is a democrat and believes in democracy, which I am sure he does, surely he should accept a new clause that embraces the wording of an early-day motion that has been signed by more than 50 per cent. of hon. Members. I would have expected the Minister to be sympathetic towards the incorporation of that early-day motion into the Bill. I cannot understand how he can claim that the Bill embraces the principles of my new clause. That is not the case; the Bill does not give us what we want.
I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I am extremely grateful to the Committee for its work on extending certain rights, such as naming grandparents. Nevertheless, I am still perturbed. Although grandparents will benefit by substantial advanced rights and naming


under the clauses that provide for them to be consulted—which is a great step forward—I remind the Minister that we have been campaigning for that for 10 years.
New Acts have been introduced, but as I mentioned them on Second Reading I do not need to do so again today. Although they embraced children's rights and the rights of child care, they were introduced piecemeal. So we pleaded on Second Reading that this Bill should be all-embracing to ensure that we will not have to come to the House year after year, trying to amend legislation to put right a wrong.
The Minister's final comments were directed to me. He urged me to accept what is already on in the Bill and to wait to see how the legislation works. He said that, if it proved necessary to alter the legislation, we could come back and do so, but that we should see how it worked first. However, if these provisions were enacted now, there would be no need for us to come back in a couple of years——

1 pm

Mr. Mellor: That is precisely what I am saying. I am sugaring the pill for the hon. Gentleman in case he is doubtful. That is the main burden of my case. Let it be clearly understood that what the hon. Gentleman is asking for today is already, in effect, provided for in the Bill. I put that point to him as plainly as I can.

Mr. Powell: That may be so, but if in 12 months or two years when the Bill is on the statute book, we find that we have to come back on behalf of grandparents to try to change the law because it is not direct enough, it will be on the Minister of State's head. It will be on the Government's head.
If it is the wish of my hon. Friends, I am quite prepared not to force a vote. However, I warn the Minister of State that in all probability—God willing—I will still be around in two or three years' time. If grandparents have the same problems and difficulties as now, and if they still have to call upon the legal profession to help them out of their difficulties, it will be because the Minister of State has not incorporated into the Bill the new clause that I and my hon. Friends are requesting. It will be on the hon. and learned Gentleman's head. It will not matter to me whether he is in the other place by then: he may be the Lord Chancellor, but I will still condemn him for today's performance and for not ensuring that a straightforward new clause was accepted and put on the statute book so that grandparents' rights were protected.

Mr. Tom Clarke: This has been an excellent debate. The introductory remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and the subsequent comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) were compelling, moving and realistic. If ever we have heard an argument about agism, that was it. They put their points most effectively.
My hon: Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It reminded me that only a week or so ago the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield—Hugh McCartney, a former Member of the House—came to Twechar in my constituency. It is a mining community with which my hon. Friend the

Member for Ashfield will have much in common. We were delighted to see him. Incidentally, he is a great-grandparent. The folks at Twechar presented him with a little bronze miner, showing the unity of purpose among my hon. Friends.
In many ways, this has been the year of the grandparent. It was the year when the Prime Minister stood outside No. 10 Downing street, between reshuffles, and announced, "We are a grandmother." Then a few days later, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), whose contributions to our discussions on this Bill have been outstanding, announced in the House, "We too are a grandmother." That may well have had an influence on events.
I want to be fair to the Minister of State and to confirm what he has said. It is true that substantial progress has been made towards realising many of the objectives that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore outlined this morning and for which he has campaigned so nobly for many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was absolutely right when he said that we shall watch carefully how the Bill is implemented. The Minister acknowledged the improved access to court proceedings and improved circumstances of care which were achieved as the Bill progressed.
In the spirit of the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, which we seriously heed, I believe that it would reflect the wishes of the House if we did not press this matter and, therefore, I seek leave to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 34

REMOVAL OF ADULTS

'(1) Where the Court has made

(a) an emergency protection order; or
(b) an interim care order;
and it is satisfied that the child's welfare would be satisfactorily safeguarded or promoted if a person who is resident in the child's household were removed from that household the court may in addition:—

(i) make an order (exclusion order) requiring that person to vacate the household; or
(ii) accept an undertaking from that person that he shall vacate the household.

(2)For the purpose of the section the term exclusion order shall include the term undertaking.

(3) Where an exclusion order is made under this section the child shall not be removed from the household.

(4) Where the court makes an exclusion order under subsection (1)(a) it shall have effect for such period, not exceeding eight days, as may be specified in the Order.

(5) s. 39(2)—(6) shall apply to subsection (1)(a) as if it referred to exclusion orders.

(6) Where the court makes an exclusion order under subsection (1)(b) shall have effect for such periods as are specified in section 35(4)—(5) as if they referred to exclusion orders.

(7) A person who is subject to an exclusion order may apply to the court for the order to be discharged.

(8) Where the court makes an exclusion order the applicant may pay any reasonable expenses incurred by the person subject to the order in connection with this accommodation throughout the period the order is in office.

(9) Where the exclusion order is in force the applicant may make arrangements for the person who is the subject of the order to return to live in the same household as the child


provided that the applicant is satisfied that the child's welfare can he satisfactorily safeguarded or promoted as a consequence.

(10) A power of arrest shall attach to all exclusion orders made under this section.

(11) A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause for suspecting of being in breach of an exclusion order by reason of that person's entry into the child's household.

(12) Where a person is arrested under subsection (11) above—

(a) he shall be brought before the court within the period of 24 hours beginning at the time of his arrest, and
(b) the court before whom he is brought may remand him.

In reckoning for the purpose of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.

(13) Where the court does not exercise its power to remand under subsection (13)(b) nor its powers under any other enactment, it shall authorise the removal of the child from the household unless it is satisfied that the child's welfare can be satisfactorily safeguarded or promoted without its doing so.

(14) For the avoidance of doubt, section 63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply to any orders made under this section.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a), in line 4, leave out 'satisfactorily safeguarded or" amendment (b), in line 6, after 'household', insert
'and the welfare of any other child resident in that household would not be harmed.'
and Government amendment No. 171.

Mr. Clarke: Given the restricted timetable—I do not wish to reopen the debate on that issue—it was my intention to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak to this new clause, but apart from minor contributions later on I hope that we might have a short Third Reading debate. That would allow us to make some important points in the limited time available to us.
The issues raised in new clause 34 were not debated at any great length in Committee. It is therefore important to discuss them now, and, in particular, to discuss the report by the Law Commission that appeared after the committee had concluded its deliberations.
The new clause is important. It is widely recognised that the sudden removal of children from the home is usually a traumatic and distressing experience for them. The purpose of the new clause is to provide an alternative to such removal in child protection cases arising out of an emergency or during the course of care proceedings. It provides that the court may order the removal of an alleged abuser either through a compulsory order or by receipt of an undertaking. The new clause is drafted to reflect the ideas contained in the working paper published in August by the Law Commission on domestic violence and the occupation of the family home.
Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have expressed sympathy for amendments tabled on the issue of the removal of alleged abusers. In both Houses the Government promised to consider tabling their own amendment, but no such amendment appeared. Subsequently, Government officials have said that no amendment could be considered until receipt of the report

of the Law Commission containing its recommendations.
Several meetings have been held with the Minister about this matter and they have been extremely helpful. On 26 September a consortium of local government and voluntary organisations met him to discuss a number of issues relating to the Bill. The Minister said that he was not opposed in principle to compulsory ouster or exclusion orders. I recollect that he agreed to discuss with the Lord Chancellor how the proposals contained in the Law Commission's working paper could be incorporated in the Bill. This morning perhaps we shall hear whether those discussions were productive and about the Government's stance on those matters.
It is true that we are all looking for new remedies for a problem that was a great worry for the Committee. Hon. Members gave examples of the difficulties and heartache for children, for their parents, for their families and, in some cases, for their community when particular circumstances lead to the lengthy removal of children from their home.
The new clause has been drafted so that exclusion orders can be obtained as an addition to an emergency placement order or interim care order. The Law Commission did not think that that was necessary or fair for families and children unless there was a specific provision against the removal of children in such circumstances. However, in Committee on 25 May the Minister strongly expressed the view that removal of abusers should take place only within the context of an EPO. Given the express provision against removal of the child when an exclusion order has been made we can see arguments for exclusion orders to run concurrently with EPOs and ICOs so that provisions for medical direction and contact may also apply.
When this Bill is enacted and this matter is dealt with there may still be a case for even more research. It might not solve the problem to know that an alleged perpetrator has been abused, although it might help, but until we find out precisely what motivates adults to indulge in this sort of child abuse—alas, it is all too common—we shall not have resolved the problem. In addition to responding to the new clause, therefore, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will feel it possible in due course to embark on even more public debate so that we can consider why such dreadful events take place, based on research that is available to us all.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I agree in general with the objective that lies behind the new clause whose aim is to avoid removing a child from the family home, so as to reduce the trauma that it suffers. The trauma suffered as a result of being taken away from home often has long-term effects on a child and adds to the guilt already felt.
At the same time, it is important to remember the balance that we are attempting to achieve. The forcible removal of an adult who has not yet been charged with an offence may have detrimental effects on a family. The child at the centre of the inquiry may suffer similar guilt feelings and feel just as traumatised if an adult leaves home as if he had been removed himself—the more so if the child feels responsible for any detrimental consequences to other members of the family.
It is important to remember that we are talking about mothers as well as fathers of children. We should also recall that often only one child is at risk—not the others in the family. It is possible with the right support to resolve


some of these cases without removing the child or the suspected perpetrator. That should always be our aim, as I am sure the Minister agrees.
Much depends on the circumstances of the case. I am worried that the new clause may lead to an abuse of this power. The removal of an adult in some circumstances may be seen as a very easy option. I accept that the removal of an adult from the family home is often desirable and may well be the only solution, but there are also circumstances in which that will still have detrimental effects. So I suggest that an adult be removed only if that will promote the welfare of the child.
I hope that when the court assesses the effect on the child's welfare it will consider the context of the family setting. The phrase "satisfactorily safeguarded" is open to too many interpretations. The welfare of the child is paramount but it is sometimes inextricably linked with the welfare of others and it does no good to resolve one problem by creating another. When considering the return of the adult to the household the test does not need to be so stringent because one assumes that the welfare of the child has improved since the removal and that it will be that status which is to be safeguarded.
I hope that I have made it clear that in tabling this small amendment my objective is not to prevent the removal of an adult but to ensure that the court deliberates on the matter of care and to ensure that the power to be given to the courts is not capable of too much abuse even though the decision may be well intended. Those are my reasons for tabling amendment (a).

Mr. Hinchliffe: New clause 34 is plain common sense. We spent much time on the issue in Committee and in view of the pressure of time in this debate I shall not delay the House for long. My main point is that under the present system of law the alleged victims of abuse are made to feel guilty. That is wrong. The trauma experienced by children and young persons has sometimes to be seen to be believed.
All hon. Members present in the Chamber were present in Committee when I spoke about the case of the girl whom I had to remove following allegations of sexual assault on her sister by the mother's boyfriend. That was a terrible situation and I never want to see anyone go through it again. I recognise that in that case I was removing the wrong person. However, the law as it stands and as, unfortunately, it will continue to stand under the Bill, means that the current situation will continue.
I take seriously the civil liberties question touched on by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). I have given a great deal of thought to that matter and I am worried about it, but I come down firmly on the side of the child or young person who is the alleged victim. I say that because such children are often not in a position to understand why they have been removed. They do not understand why they are made to feel so guilty about an apparent break-up of the family and it appears to them that they are being punished for something that they have not done.
When talking about an exclusion order or, as it is sometimes called, an ouster order, we are talking about the removal of an adult who is in a much better position, guilty

or not guilty, to understand precisely the reason for the exercise of the power. I come down firmly on the side of defending the child in the home and not removing him to a foster home, a children's home or an assessment centre. I am in favour of leaving children in the home environment and removing the alleged perpetrator of the offence rather than the victim.
I know that there is a wide-ranging support for the new clause. One source of support of which perhaps the Minister is not aware is the Law Society. It has said that it is aware of the fact that exclusion or ouster orders are currently being considered by the Law Commission. The Law Society will be responding to the commission's working paper, but it realises that it may be several years before the deliberations are acted upon. The Law Society says:
We therefore take the view that some provision needs to be made in the Bill if only as a temporary measure.
I urge the Minister to take the new clause on board. It is sound common sense and will make a great deal of difference to the treatment of many children who are victims of circumstances beyond their control.

Mr. Mellor: I do not think that there is much difference between us on this matter. It comes down to an important technical issue. As I said in Committee and in the various meetings that we have had since, the making of an emergency protection order does not mean that the local authority has to remove the child from the home. It is open to the authority, provided it does so using extreme care and proper professional judgment, to arrange to accept an agreement by the alleged abuser to go so that the child will not be further disrupted by having the link with the abuser broken. Even if that is the right thing to do it sometimes causes trauma to a child. A child should not also lose the link with brothers and sisters who may remain.
I think I said earlier that I am aware of cases in which adults have been abused and have said that being taken away from home seemed like a form of punishment for having been the victims of abuse. That is common ground and we have sought to make it a little easier for the alleged abuser to go by putting into the Bill a provision that local authorities could help with the expenses of that happening in the best interests of the child.
A narrow but difficult point arises out of new clause 34. The Law Commission has published a consultative document on domestic violence and the occupation of family homes. If people have the right of occupation it is not a trivial matter to terminate that right, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) rightly said. I should feel more comfortable about proceeding on this once we have received the Law Commission's study and it has had a chance to take on board the points made during consultation. Our resolve to deal thoroughly with the matter is not weakened and we do not preclude considering it when the Law Commission has put forward its final thoughts.
Even without the new clause, the law is now stronger. As a professional who has been involved in this work, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) knows that a child does not have to be removed simply because a protection order has been made. The abuser can go instead. We cannot add an ouster provision now, without first considering carefully the serious issues raised in the Law Commission's report, and I hope that the House will


understand my reasons for not accepting the new clause. I shall he happy to arrange further discussions on the matter as progress is made.
Government amendment No. 171 is important. It picks up a point made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in the Cleveland inquiry report. She encouraged social services departments to consider the appropriateness of using their existing powers under section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980, which are designed to prevent the reception of a child into care. Under these powers and for a limited period, they may be able to defray the additional costs incurred by the suspected abuser leaving home on a temporary basis while initial assessment of the child is completed. The power is intended to help with alternative accommodation whether the suspected abuser leaves under voluntary arrangements agreed with the authority under an emergency protection order or an interim care order. Alternatively, it could be used in support of any action taken under existing legislation or a new statutory scheme introduced as a result of the Law Commission's work. The provision oils the machinery satisfactorily, as we await the outcome of the Law Commission's deliberations. I hope that the I-louse will agree to amendment No. 171 and that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will not press his new clause to a Division.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 240.

Schedule 9A

JURISDICTION

PART I

GENERAL

Commencement of proceedings

1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order specify proceedings under this Act or the Adoption Act 1976 which may only be commenced in—

(a) a specified level of court;
(b) a court which falls within a specified class of court; or
(c) a particular court determined in accordance with, or specified in, the order.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order specify circumstances in which specified proceedings under this Act or the Adoption Act 1976 (which might otherwise be commenced elsewhere) may only be commenced in—

(a) a specified level of court;
(b) a court which falls within a specified class of court; or
(c) a particular court determined in accordance with; or specified in, the order.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision by virtue of which, where specified proceedings with respect to a child under—

(a) this Act;
(b) the Adoption Act 1976; or
(c) the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,
have been commenced in or transferred to any court (whether or not by virtue of an order under this Schedule), any other specified family proceedings which may affect, or are otherwise connected with, the child may, in specified circumstances, only be commenced in that court.

(4) A class of court specified in an order under this Schedule may be described by reference to a description of proceedings and may include different levels of court.

Transfer of proceedings

2.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide that in specified circumstances the whole, or any specified part of, specified proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be transferred to—

(a) a specified level of court;
(b) a court which falls within a specified class of court; or
(c) a particular court determined in accordance with, or specified in, the order.

(2) Any order under this paragraph may provide for the transfer to be made at any stage, or specified stage, of the proceedings and whether or not the proceedings, or any part of them, have already been transferred.

(3) The proceedings to which this paragraph applies are—

(a) any proceedings under this Act;
(b) any proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976;
(c) any other proceedings which—

(i) are family proceedings for the purposes of this Act, other than proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; and
(ii) may affect, or are otherwise connected with, the child concerned.

(4) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) may only be transferred in accordance with the provisions of an order made under this paragraph for the purpose of consolidating them with proceedings under—

(a) this Act;
(b) the Adoption Act 1976; or
(c) the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children.

(5) An order under this paragraph may make such provision as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate for excluding proceedings to which this paragraph applies from the operation of any enactment which would otherwise govern the transfer of those proceedings, or any part of them.

Hearings by single justice

3.—(1) In such circumstances as the Lord Chancellor may by order specify—

(a) the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court to make an emergency protection order;
(b) any specified question with respect to the transfer of specified proceedings to or from a magistrates" court in accordance with the provisions of an order under paragraph 2,
may be exercised by a single justice.

(2) Any provision made under this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law relating to the functions which may be performed by a single justice of the peace.

General

4.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) the commencement of proceedings under this Act includes the making of any application under this Act in the course of proceedings (whether or not those proceedings are proceedings under this Act); and
(b) there are three levels of court, that is to say the High Court, any county court and any magistrates' court.

(2) In this Schedule "specified means specified by an order made under this Schedule.

(3) Any order under paragraph I may make provision as to the effect of commencing proceedings in contravention of any of the provisions of the order.

(4) An order under paragraph 2 may make provision as to the effect of a failure to comply with any of the provisions of the order.

(5) An order under this Schedule may—

(a) make such consequential, incidental or transitional provision as the Lord Chancellor considers expedient, including provision amending any other enactment so far as it concerns the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace;
(b) make provision for treating proceedings which are—

(i) in part proceedings of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph 2(3); and
(ii) in part proceedings of a kind mentioned in paragraph (c) of paragraph 2(3),
as consisting of proceedings of one or other of those kinds, for the purposes of the application of any order made under paragraph 2.

PART II

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

The Administration of Justice Act 1964 (c. 42)

5. In section 38 of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 (interpretation), the definition of "domestic court", which is spent, shall be omitted.

The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c. 22)

6. In the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978—

(a) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur in sections 16(5)(c) and 88(1), there shall be substituted "family proceedings";
(b) for the words "domestic court panel", wherever they occur in section 16(5)(b), there shall be substituted "family panel".

The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c.55)

7. In the Justices of the Peace Act 1979—

(a) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur in section 16(5), there shall be substituted "family proceedings";
(b) for the words "domestic court", wherever they occur in section 17(3), there shall be substituted "family proceedings court";
(c) for the words "domestic courts", wherever they occur in sections 38(2) and 58(1) and (5), there shall be substituted "family proceedings courts".

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)

8. In the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—

(a) in section 65(1) (meaning of family proceedings), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (m)—
"(n) the Children Act 1989";
(b) in section 65(2)(a) for the words "and (m)" there shall be substituted "(m) and (n)";
(c) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur in sections 65(1), (2) and (3), 66(1) and (2), 67(1), (2) and (7), 69(1), (2), (3) and (4), 70(2) and (3), 71(1) and (2), 72(1), 73, 74(1), 121(8) and 150(1), there shall be substituted "family proceedings";
(d) for the words "domestic court panel", wherever they occur in sections 66(2), 67(2), (4), (5), (7) and (8) and 68(1), (2) and (3), there shall be substituted "family panels";
(e) for the words "domestic courts panels", wherever they occur in section 67(3), (4), (5) and (6), there shall be substituted "family panels";
(f) for the words "domestic courts", wherever they occur in sections 67(1), (3) and 68(1), there shall be substituted "family proceedings courts";
(g) for the words "domestic court", wherever they occur in section 67(2) and (5), there shall be substituted "family proceedings court".

The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)

9. In paragraph 3 of Schedule Ito the Supreme Court Act 1981 (distribution of business to the Family Division of the High Court), the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end—
(e) proceedings under the Children Act 1989".

The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)

10. In section 44 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (domestic proceedings in magistrates' courts to include applications to alter maintenance agreements) for the words "domestic proceedings", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted "family proceedings".

Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)

11.—In section 281(5)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (discharge not to release bankrupt from bankruptcy debt

arising under any order made in family proceedings or in domestic proceedings), the words "or in domestic proceedings" shall be omitted.

(2) In section 281(8) of that Act (interpretation), for the definitions of "domestic proceedings" and "family proceedings" there shall be substituted—
'family procedings' means—

(a) family proceedings within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and any proceedings which would be such proceedings but for section 65(1)(ii) of that Act (proceedings for variation of order for periodical payments); and
(b) family proceedings within the meaning of Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Procedings Act 1984.".'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 16

DAY CARE FOR PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN

Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 12, line 31 leave out 'they consider' and insert 'is'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 46 to 48.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I intervene now although my comments also apply to later amendments, clause 64 and schedule 8. I wish to deal with the age at which the Government accept responsibility for registration of children's day care schemes. I am pleased that in these amendments the Government have raised the age from five to eight, but I am disappointed that they have stopped at the age of eight. Children over eight are still at a vulnerable age and can be exploited easily. As has been said in a previous debate, some wicked people may have motives that are difficult to detect before the event. Nevertheless, we must be vigilant. We are concerned that by raising the age limit to only eight years the Government are not allowing for the vigilance that we feel is necessary. Our argument applies wherever in the day care arrangements the Government are raising the age of responsibility from five years to eight. We would have wished the limit to be raised to 14 years. This is an issue to which we shall have to return.

Mr. Mellor: I accept that there is a genuine difference between us. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has properly put her argument before the House. I shall not repeat the reasons why the Government have taken the view that they have. Among the many things that we agree about, the issue remains a piece of unfinished business and a difference between us.
It was remiss of me not to have said initially that the amendment reflects an argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). I promised to consider it, and as has happened so often during the progress of the Bill, having considered the argument I found that I agreed with it. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 35, after 'including', insert 'training'.
Having disappointed the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on one point, I can tell her that the amendment before us is the equivalent of one which she moved in Committee. I found her arguments persuasive and the amendment reflects them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 12, line 40, leave out from 'care" to 'form' in line 42 and insert 'means any'.

No. 47, in page 13, line 3, leave out 'they consider' and insert 'is'.

No. 48, in page 13, line 9, leave out from '(7)' to end of line 14 and insert 'In this section'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 17

REVIEW OF PROVISION FOR DAY CARE, CHILD MINDING ETC.

Amendment made: No. 293, in page 13, line 17, after 'authority', insert 'in England and Wales'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'provision' to end of line 19 and insert
'which they make under section 16'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 374.

Mr. Mellor: The amendment reflects an undertaking given in Committee which I am glad that we have been able to honour.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 13, line 21, leave out 'five' and insert 'eight'.

No. 51, in page 13, line 24, leave out 'five' and insert 'eight'.

No. 374, in page 13, line 24, after 'persons', insert 'other than the authority'.

No. 294, in page 13, line 26, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

No. 295, in line 28, at end insert—
'(2A) Every local authority in Scotland shall, at least once in every review period, review—

(a) the provision for day care within their area made for children under the age of eight by the local authority and by persons required to register under section 64(1)(b); and
(b) the extent to which the services of child minders are available within their area with respect to children tinder the age of eight.'.

No. 296, in line 29, after 'authorities', insert 'or, in Scotland, the authority'.

No. 52, in line 30, leave out 'five' and insert 'eight'.

No. 297, in line 33, leave out 'in England and Wales'.

No. 298, in page 14, line 6, after 'health authority', insert 'or health board'.

No. 363, in line 7, at end insert—
'(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, "day care" has the same meaning as in section (Application of Part X to Scotland) and "health board" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 18

PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN

Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 15, line 7, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
'(9) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply while any person—

(a) in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child; or
(b) who has care of the child by virtue of an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,
agrees to the child being looked after in accommodation provided by or on behalf of the local authority.

(9A) Where there is more than one such person as is mentioned in subsection (9), all of them must agree.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Hinchliffe: The clause and the amendment deal with a child's removal from voluntary care. I argued in Committee—the argument was supported by the NSPCC—that while the clause places a duty on a local authority to ascertain and consider the child's wishes and feelings before it provides accommodation, there is no comparable duty on a local authority or parent to consider the child's wishes before he or she is removed from the accommodation. I and others said in Committee that the child could be unhappy about leaving at short notice or about the arrangements which have been made. The Bill takes children's well-being and personal wishes a good way forward in law and it is unfortunate that the clause cannot be said to be a full part of that process. I shall be grateful if the Minister will undertake to consider the matter and, if possible, ensure that amendments are tabled in another place.

Mr. Mellor: I shall consider the matter and advise the hon. Gentleman on where we should go from here.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

GENERAL DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RELATION TO CHILDREN LOOKED AE FER BY THEM

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 15, line 45, at end insert 'and linguistic'.[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 20

PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION AND MAINTENANCE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR CHILDREN WHOM THEY ARE LOOKING AFTER

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 16, line 17, at end insert—
'in other respects apart from providing accommodation for him'.

No. 56, in page 17, line 3, at end insert—
'(5A) Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection, any local authority looking after a child shall make arrangements to enable him to live with—

(a) a person falling within subsection (4); or
a relative, friend or other person connected with him,
unless that would not be reasonably practicable or consistent with his welfare'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

No. 57, in page 17, line 8, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 21

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN

Mr. Hinchliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 488, in page 17, line 36, at end insert—
'(2A) Each local authority shall

(a) keep a register of all persons qualifying for advice and assistance within its area
(b) cause persons on that register to be visited by a person authorised by the authority once every six months.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 455, in page 18, line 15, after 'assistance', insert—
'(6A) In each application for assistance under this section the local authority shall:
(a) decide whether to provide the help which has been asked for;
No. 489, in page 18, line 22, after 'section', insert
', or whose name is listed on the register kept in accordance with subsection (2A),'.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The amendments deal with the position of children leaving care. In the last few days, a report has emerged that is very critical of the arrangements made by local authorities for young persons leaving care. Those criticisms apply right across London local authorities, regardless of their political control. The year-long study carried out by Lucy Bonnerjea for the London boroughs children's regional panel says that
there is no local authority which in practice smooths the way out of care for all young people.
I am very concerned—this is a major issue in west Yorkshire—at the fact that, on leaving care, many young people find their way on to the streets, into prostitution and into other undesirable circumstances. I commend the work of the Yorkshire Evening Post, which recently published a series on the teenage vice trap, exposing the way in which young people who have been in care or with difficult family circumstances find their way on to the streets.
Yesterday, during our debate on the guillotine motion, I said that I had spoken earlier this week to a probation officer from the Dewsbury area who had told me about a young client who, because of the Government's benefit changes, has ended up on the streets. That client has had to work as a prostitute to earn money to buy furniture for her flat. Such claimants can no longer get the grants that were previously made available by the Department. We must ask ourselves why young people find themselves in such circumstances.
One of the main reasons is the direct responsibility of the Government, who have changed the benefit arrangements for young persons. Vast numbers of people aged 16 and 17 no longer qualify for any benefit. Even though some changes have been made, the problem remains very serious. I note that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has tabled an amendment, No. 362, which would require local authorities to pay benefit. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's motives are honourable, but his amendment is yet another example of local authorities being required to pick up the tab and do what the Government used to do, and what they should continue to do, for young people who have left care.
I am especially concerned about the benefits issue. I know that the Government have re-examined their views on the issue of legitimate reasons for a child leaving home, but problems remain. The Government's review of social security did absolutely nothing to help young people under the age of 18 who cannot live at home. They are eligible for income support for 12 weeks if they leave school at Easter or for 16 weeks if they leave school in the summer but thereafter their income support ceases and their case has to be reconsidered by the Minister. That is crazy. There are numerous cases in which such ministerial discretion will be required. Surely it must be wrong to treat vulnerable

young people who are difficult to place more harshly than others who live in the more satisfactory home environment.
Another problem that applies to many young persons is related to the level of personal allowances. Before April 1988, the scale rates for householders on supplementary benefit were the same irrespective of age. Since April last year, however, young people having to live independently receive personal allowance at only 58 per cent. of the full adult rate. By agreeing to pay independent 16 to 17-year-olds the same rate as those aged 18 to 21, the new review raised that proportion to 79 per cent. But the lower rate for the 18 to 21-year-olds is itself based on the proposition that they are not fully independent from their parents. The fact that 16 and 17-year-olds have to demonstrate their independence from their parents to get any benefit makes paying them less than the full adult rate nonsense. Such circumstances are leading young people into taking desperate measures and, in some areas, on to the streets.
What about young people who started on YTS but who have dropped out or have been dismissed? Not every young person entering training has had the educational background or security enjoyed by hon. Members' most of who have had reasonable family backgrounds. The current rules allow a bridging allowance of £15 a week for up to eight weeks a year as long as the young person is willing to take another YTS place when it becomes available. The reduction to £15 a week may well act as a salutary lesson for a 17-year-old living at home but if that person is living independently through no fault of his own, he will be required to make up his money in other ways. That is driving young persons into undesirable circumstances. Right hon. and hon. Members will also be familiar with the problems arising from the abolition of board and lodging payments, but we will debate that aspect later.
On leaving care, many young persons find themselves in a number of undesirable circumstances. A large proportion of those from my constituency end up in London or in other major cities, well away from the places where they have lived all their lives. They lose contact with their families and their home environment and get into enormous difficulties, and may engage in male or female prostitution.
The amendment requires local authorities to establish a register of young people aged between 16 and 21 who have been in their care and to make contact with them at least twice a year. That would in effect continue the review process that is built into existing law. Such an arrangement will allow young people to receive such assistance and advice as may be necessary. Many young people leaving care will progress satisfactorily and may want nothing to do with social services, but others will welcome being contacted and assisted by a social worker.
That proposal will make further demands on the resources of local authorities, particularly in making contact with social services departments in other parts of the country, as is required by amendment No. 489, in respect of the notification procedure. However, there are good reasons for that requirement. The young person leaving care is at a difficult stage in his or her life. Benefit changes have distinctly worsened the chances of their progressing successfully, and I hope that the Minister will see the sense of the amendment and support it.

Mr. Mellor: There is certainly a role for local authorities, and the Bill imposes one on them. In the guidance issued to local authorities, emphasis will be placed on the need to ensure that young people are made fully aware of the local authority support that is available to them—particularly in cases where the young person has no other responsible adult to whom he or she can turn.
The amendment goes too far, because it amounts to imposing a much greater duty, by requiring a local authority to satisfy itself as to whether every young person up to the age of 21 needs to be advised or befriended. The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned always about imposing extra burdens on local authorities, but his proposal would impose too great a burden. Provided that the local authority makes available information about its services, there is no harm in making the young person responsible for seeking assistance.
The hon. Gentleman's other arguments are primarily points for the Department of Social Security, and I shall ensure that his comments about benefit arrangements are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 18, line 16, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsections (1) to (6)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to debate Government amendments Nos. 59, 375, 60 and 61.

Mr. Mellor: These amendments are important because they reflect my commitment in Committee to introduce a specific power to enable a local authority to provide financial assistance to those who have left its care and are seeking or are engaged in employment, or are receiving education or training.
The Child Care Act 1980 contains such a power, but we have taken the oportunity to extend its scope and application. The new power will apply to all young people qualifying for advice and assistance, as defined in subsection (2).
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection will enable local authorities to provide young people with financial assistance to help them to meet the cost of accommodation when it is associated with employment or the seeking of employment, or with receiving education or training. Paragraph (b) enables grants to be made to meet expenses associated with education and training—for example, to purchase books and other educational materials, or tools, in the case of those learning a trade. As from July this year, that form of financial assistance will no longer affect the level of income support that a young person may receive.
This is another of the issues on which the Opposition will inevitably feel that we have not gone far enough. I feel, however, that it is a significant step forward, and I hope that—even if they do not agree with every material particular in this highly contentious sphere—Opposition Members will at least feel that it is worth endorsing.

Mr. Rowe: The Government have moved a considerable distance from their original position, and I am grateful for that. What I had in mind was to challenge slightly the definition of "exceptional circumstances". I believe that, in a number of ways, many young people

leaving local authority care lag behind their contemporaries from a more stable and settled background. They will be less mature, and often less confident in their ability to establish personal relationships. Failure to retain a place on a youth training scheme or in a job, for instance, may well have much more to do with that than with any malice aforethought or deliberate incompetence. If we are to stick to the idea that the local authority is really acting as a parent, we must be sure that ability to provide financial assistance is not interpreted too narrowly.
I fully understand that it is much easier for a hard-pressed social worker to hand out money than to go through the difficult and time-consuming business of ensuring that a young person is not merely regarding him as a soft touch, but is busily engaged in trying to grow up. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider carefully what is meant by "exceptional circumstances"

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
'(7A) A local authority may give assistance to any person who qualifies for advice and assistance by virtue of subsection (2)(a) by—

(a) contributing to expenses incurred by him in living near the place where he is, or will be—

(i) employed or seeking employment; or
(ii)receiving education or training; or
(b) making a grant to enable him to meet expenses connected with his education or training.

No. 375, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
'(7B) Where a local authority are assisting the person under subsection (7A) by making a contribution or grant with respect to a course of education or training, they may—
(a)continue to do so even though he reaches the age of twenty-one before completing the course; and
(b)disregard any interruption in his attendance on the course if he resumes it as soon as is reasonably practicable.'

No 60, in page 18, line 19, after 'section', insert '(otherwise than under subsection (7A))'.

No. 61, in page 18, line 22, after 'section', insert
', as a person qualifying for advice and assistance,'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause22

USE OF ACCOMMODATION FOR RESTRICTING LIBERTY

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 18, line 45, after `suffer, insert 'significant'.

No. 63, in page 19, line 21, leave out subsection (6)

No. 64, in page 19, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'having' in line 29.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 23

REVIEW OF CASES AND INQUIRIES INTO REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 21, line 22, leave out 'this subsection' and insert
'regulating the procedure to be followed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 485, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
'(9) Every local authority shall designate a named officer responsible for informing and advising any child in its care about his or her rights to make any representations (including any complaint), about the local authority's procedures for considering any representations (including any complaint)


and to provide assistance and support to any child (entitled to do so) who makes any representations (including any complaint) to the local authority.'.

No. 486, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
'(10) The designated officer, as provided for by subsection (9) above, shall also advise and inform any person who can show reasonable cause to be acting on behalf of any child mentioned in that subsection about the local authority's procedures for considering any representations (including any complaint) and shall facilitate their participation within those procedures.'

Mr. Mellor: This is a clarifying amendment prompted by a speech in the other place by Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We are grateful to him for picking up a point that we are happy to correct in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 66, in page 22, line 31, leave out from first 'falls' to '; or' in line 33—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 26

RECOUPMENT OF COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 23, line 15, leave out 'when' and insert 'immediately before'.

No. 68, in page 23, line 17, after 'authority', insert 'any reasonable'

No. 69, in page 23, line 18, at end insert 'and maintaining him'.

No. 70, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
'(7A) Where a local authority provide accommodation under section (Provision of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, etc.)(1) or (2)(a) or (b) for a child who is ordinarily resident within the area of another local authority and they are not maintaining him in—

(a) a community home provided by them;
(b) a controlled community home; or
(c) a hospital vested in the Secretary of State,
they may recover from that other authority any reasonable expenses incurred by them in providing the accommodation and maintaining him.'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 2

LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Amendments made: No. 171, in page 90, line 5, at end insert—

'Provision of accommodation in order to protect child

4A.—(1) Where—

(a) it appears to a local authority that a child who is living on particular premises is suffering, or is likely to suffer, ill treatment at the hands of another person who is living on those premises; and
(b) that other person proposes to move from the premises,
the authority may assist that other person to obtain alternative accommodation.

(2) Assistance given under this paragraph may be in cash.

(3) Subsections (7) to (9) of section 15 shall apply in relation to assistance given under this paragraph as they apply in relation to assistance given under that section.'.

No. 172, in page 91, line 8, leave out from 'take' to end of line 10 and insert
'such steps as are reasonably practicable, where any child within their area who is in need and whom they are not looking after is living apart from his family—'.

No. 407, in page 91, line 14, at end insert—

'Duty to consider racial groups to which children in need belong

9A. Every local authority shall, in making any arrangements—
(a) for the provision of day care within their area; or
(b) designed to encourage persons to act as local authority foster parents,
have regard to the different racial groups to which children within their area who are in need belong.'.

No. 173, in page 93, line 22, after 'person' insert
'who is not a parent of his but'.

No. 174, in page 93, line 35, leave out from 'been' to end of line and insert 'infrequent'.

No. 175, in page 93, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert
'and that it would be in the child's best interests for an independent person to be appointed to be his visitor for the purposes of this paragraph, they shall appoint such a visitor.'.

No. 408, in page 93, line 44, leave out 'expenses reasonably incurred' and insert 'reasonable expenses incurred'.

No. 176, in page 94, line 7, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a local authority propose to appoint a visitor for a child under this paragraph, the appointment shall not be made if—

(a) the child objects to it; and
(b) the authority are satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision.

(4B) Where a visitor has been appointed for a child under this paragraph, the local authority shall determine the appointment if—

(a) the child objects to its continuing; and
(b) the authority are satisfied that he has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision

No. 177, in page 94, line 21, leave out 'with the approval of the court' and insert 'only'.

No. 178, in page 94, line 22, leave out 'abroad' and insert
'outside England and Wales with the approval of the court'

No. 179, in page 94, line 23, leave out from 'who' to end of line 26 and insert
'has parental responsibility for the child.'.

No. 180, in page 94, line 28, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales'.

No. 181, in page 94, line 31, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales'.

No. 182, in page 94, line 35, leave out from 'who' to end of line 38 and insert
'has parental responsibility for the child'.

No. 183, in page 95, line 9, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales'

No. 320, in page 95, line 10, at end insert—
'(7) Where a court decides to give its approval under this paragraph it may order that its decision is not to have effect during the appeal period.

(8) In sub-paragraph (7) "the appeal period" means—

(a) where an appeal is made against the decision, the period between the making of the decision and the determination of the appeal; and
(b) otherwise, the period during which an appeal may be made against the decision.'

No. 409, in page 96, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—

'(a) section (provision of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, etc.);
(b) an interim case order;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 27

MISCELLANEOUS

Amendments made: No. 490, in page 23, line 26, after '18(2)' insert


',(Provision of accommodation for children in police protection or detention or on remand, etc.)(3)'.

No. 71, in page 23, line 26, leave out '26(7) or (8)' and insert '26(7) to (8)'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 28

CARE AND SUPERVISION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 299, in page 24, line 6, leave out from 'the' to first `to' in line 9, and insert
'care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being it would be reasonable to expect a parent.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 24, line 29, at end insert 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendment No.73.

Mr. Mellor: This is another instance of the powers of persuasion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in Committee. I have made this change to meet his point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 24, line 35, leave out from '1968' to end of line 37.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 29

PERIOD WITHIN WHICH APPLICATION FOR CARE, SUPERVISION OR SECTION 31 ORDER MUST BE DISPOSED OF

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 25, line 25, leave out from 'for' to 'shall' in line 29 and insert
'an order under this Part'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 30

EFFECT OF CARE ORDER

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 26, line 23, leave out 'creed' and insert 'persuasion'.

No. 76, in page 26, line 29, leave out
'or section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978'.

No. 77, in page 26, line 32, leave out
'or section 49 of the Act of 1978'

No. 78, in page 26, line 44, leave out 'abroad' and insert 'outside England and Wales'[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 31

PARENTAL CONTACT ETC. WITH CHILDREN IN CARE

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 27, line 9, leave out 'and'.

No. 80, in page 27, line 12, at end insert
'and
(d) where, immediately before the care order was made, a person had care of the child by virtue of an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children, that person.'.

No. 81, in page 27, line 17, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'

No. 82, in page 27, line 26, leave out `(c)' and insert '(d)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 33

EDUCATION SUPERVISION ORDERS

Mr. Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 473, in page 28, line 38, at end insert
'either by regular attendance at a school or otherwise'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 474, in page 29, line 26, at end insert—
'(9A) Where a local education authority proposes to make
an application for an education supervision order they shall—

(a) advise parents of their rights and options under the law with specific reference to section 36 of the Education Act 1944; and
(b) where applicable allow a reasonable time limit for the provision of "otherwise education".'

No. 475, in page 103, line 23, at end insert—
'(aa) to inform the child and his parents of their rights and options under the law relating to education;'.

Mr. Fearn: I am glad that you have seen these amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you missed my other amendment, No. 481. They have been tabled on behalf of the Children's Home-based Education Association.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any action taken by education officers is in keeping with section 36(5) of the Education Act 1944, which gives parents the duty and the right to ensure that their child is educated by attendance at school or otherwise. It is the "otherwise" element of the clause that is relevant here because it means that parents have a right by law to educate their children in the home or by some other means than regular attendance at school.
Problems with education arise in various ways. A parent may be unhappy with the lack of basic education in a particular school. The child's potential may be unfulfilled, or it may have special needs, or suffer from school phobia—a real condition which causes sheer panic. Sometimes there is a situation in the home or elsewhere that affects the child's attendance at school.
A parent's first course of action when a problem arises is usually to approach the school. That is not always successful, whereupon the local education authority is called in, either at the parents' or the school's request. It is here that there is often a lack of communication which ends up with the child, or the parents, becoming the subject of a court case, with the threat of a care order.
An article that first appeared in an "Education Otherwise" newsletter explains what could happen when matters get to that stage:
To encourage children to attend school, our LEA has been experimenting with the procedure of repeated adjournments in the Juvenile Court. Each time the child appears, and it may be at intervals of a week, a fortnight, or more, depending on progress, the child's attendance is reviewed. If attendance has not improved, an interim care order is made as an 'encouragement' to attend school. If this does not work, a full care order is made. The chairman of the magistrates tells the child in no uncertain way of the consequences of poor school attendance, stating, 'Next time bring a bag with your night things. You'll be going away'.
To me that extraordinary system is unnecessary and a great waste of Government and court resources. Much heartache caused by children being taken into care for non-attendance at school could be avoided if parents were informed of their rights and given a reasonable amount of time to set in motion plans for alternative means of educating their child.
Under the law, parents are perfectly within their rights to educate their children at home even for short periods and, if they were advised of the help and support groups that can assist them, many of the problems could be wiped out and the child could return to school. That is a more sensible approach. We need to get away from the idea that if children are not educated in school then they must be up to no good. The Government go some way to recognising that by introducing an amendment referring to the place of education rather than just to the school. The main purpose must be to inform parents of their rights before it becomes necessary to take out a supervision order. Earlier and better communication, information and advice will result in fewer problems and is the better way to protect the interests of our children.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for moving his amendment and recognising that in part we have already tabled our own amendments to try to meet his points. Amendment No. 473 is unnecessary because the existing wording in clause 33 does not specify where proper education should take place and does not exclude education outside the school setting. Therefore there is no conflict with the provisions of the Education Act 1944, which provides for some children being educated outside school, subject to the overriding necessity that the child receives a suitable education.
On amendment No. 476, we accept that the Bill as presently drafted could imply that education wholly equates with schooling. That was not the Government's intention, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. His amendment No. 191 clarifies that point.
Amendment No. 474 would require local education authorities, before applying for an education supervision order, to advise parents of their rights under education law. That amendment is not necessary, because a court cannot make an education supervision order if the parents are fulfilling their duty under the Education Act to ensure that their child is being properly educated. In making the decision, the court would consider representations by the parents and the local education authorities.
Amendment No. 475 would require supervisors—where an education supervision order is in force—to give the child and the parents details of their statutory rights and options. However, it would not be practicable in statute to impose a blanket requirement to give information about the range of educational rights and options. In suitable cases, where parents have expressed a wish to educate their child outside a school setting, the supervisor would—as a matter of good professional practice—make relevant information available to them.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman information that enables him to further advise the groups with whom he has been discussing the matter. Obviously, if they feel that there are continuing problems, I should be glad to hear from him. I hope that amendment No. 191 has cleared up the one loophole revealed by the hon. Gentleman, and that he will not seek to press his amendment.

Mr. Fearn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In order that we might have time for a Third Reading debate, an indication has been given that the remaining Government amendments could be moved en bloc. Also, hon. Members who have tabled their own amendments have agreed not to move them. I hope that that will meet with your approval.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Given the circumstances, I willingly agree to that suggestion, as it would be helpful in terms of procedure. I know that the Minister and the House will not take that as a sign that the Opposition endorse every dot and comma.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If no hon. Members objects to proceeding in that way, I will put the remaining Government amendments en bloc.

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 29, line 17, leave out from 'shall' to 'before' in line 19.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 3

SUPERVISION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 184, in page 99, line 38, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).

No. 410, in page 102, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) A supervision order shall also cease to have effect if an event mentioned in section 25(1)(a) or (b) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (termination of existing orders) occurs with respect to the child.'.

No. 321, in page 102, line 33, leave out 'agrees' and insert 'agree'.

No. 322, in page 102 line 34, leave out 'it appears to the court that'.

No. 323, in page 102 line 35, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.

No. 324, in page 102, line 38, leave out 'requests' and insert 'request'.

No. 185, in page 103, line 9, leave out '(under this or any other enactment)'

No. 186, in page 103, line 25, at end insert 'and'.

No. 187, in page 103, line 26, leave out from 'parents' to end of line 27.

No. 188, in page 103, line 31, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—
'(i) the supervised child; or
(ii) a parent of his,'.

No. 189, in page 103, line 38, at end insert 'and'.

No. 190, in page 103, line 39, leave out from 'parents' to end of line 41.

No. 191, in page 103, line 42, leave out 'school which the child should attend'
and insert
'place at which the child should be educated'.

No. 192, in page 104, line 1, leave out 'other wishes and feelings mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)'
and insert
'wishes and feelings of the child's parents'.

No. 193, in page 104, line 2, at end insert—
'(4) Directions may be given under this paragraph at any time while the education supervision order is in force.'.

No. 194, in page 104, line 25, leave out '12A' and insert '12C'.

No. 195, in page 105, line 2, at end insert—

'Information to be given to supervisor etc.

15A.—(1) An education supervision order may require the child—


(a) to keep the supervisor informed of any change in his address; and
(b) to allow the supervisor to visit him at the place where he is living.

(2) A person who is the parent of a child with respect to whom an education supervision order has been made shall—
(a) if asked by the supervisor, inform him of the child's addres (if it is known to him); and
(b) if he is living with the child, allow the supervisor reasonable contact with the child.'.

No. 471, in page 105, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 9.

No. 197, in page 105, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert

'Offences

16A.—(1) If a parent of a child with respect to whom an education supervision order is in force persistently fails to comply with a direction given under the order he shall be guilty of an offence.

(21) It shall be a defence for any person charged with such an offence to prove that—
(a) he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the direction was complied with;
(b) the direction was unreasonable; or
(c)he had complied with—
(i) a requirement included in a supervision order made with respect to the child; or
(ii) directions given under such a requirement, and that it was not reasonably practicable to comply both with the direction and with the requirement or directions mentioned in paragraph (c).

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale.

Persistent failure of child to comply with directions

16B.—(1) Where a child with repect to whom an education supervision order is in force persistently fails to comply with any direction given under the order, the local education authority concerned shall notify the appropriate local authority.

(2) Where a local authority have been notified under sub-paragraph (1) they shall investigate the circumstances of the child.

(3) In this paragraph "the appropriate local authority" has the same meaning as in section 33.'.

(5) No. 198, in page 105, line 25, at end insert—

'Interpretation

19. In this Part of this Schedule "parent" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944 (as amended by Schedule 11).'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 35

INTERIM ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 31, line 4, after second 'which', insert '-(i)'.

No. 85, in page 31, line 5, after '34(4)', insert 'but
(ii) no application for a care order or supervision order has been made with respect to the child,'.

No. 86, in page 31, line 10, leave out `if later'.

No. 87, in page 31, line 11, at end insert
`if that period ends later than the period mentioned in paragraph (a)'.

No. 88, in page 31, line 14, after 'examination', insert 'or other assessment'.

No. 89, in page 31, line 15, at end insert
'; but if the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment'.

No. 90, in page 31, line 18, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.

No. 91, in page 31, line 19, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.

No. 92, in page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

`(9) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 3 shall not apply in relation to an interim supervision order.'. [Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 36

DISCHARGE AND VARIATION ETC. OF CARE ORDERS AND SUPERVISION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 32, line 8, leave out subsection (5).

No. 95, in page 32, line 12, leave out from '(4)' to 'any' in line 15.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 37

REPRESENTATION OF CHILD AND OF HIS INTERESTS IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 32, line 44, at end insert—
`(cc) on an application under section 36(4);'.

No. 97, in page 33, line 4, at end insert—
'(ee) under Part V;'.

No. 98, in page 33, line 12, after '(ii)', insert—
'(iv) the refusal of an application under section 36(4);
(v) the making, or refusal to make, an order under Part V'.

No. 99, in page 33, line 42, at end insert—
'(11) Regardless of any enactment or rule of law which would otherwise prevent it from doing so, the court may take account of—
(a) any statement contained in a report made by a guardian ad litem who is appointed under this section for the purpose of the proceedings in question; and
(b) any evidence given in respect of the matters referred to in the report,
in so far as the statement or evidence is, in the opinion of the court, relevant to the question which the court is considering.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 38

ORDERS FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

Amendments made: No. 100, in page 34, line 5, leave out from second 'if' to end of line 10 and insert—
'it is satisfied that—
(a) there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if—
(i) he is not removed to accommodation provided by or on behalf of the applicant; or
(ii) he does not remain in the place in which he is then being accommodated;
(b) in the case of an application made by a local authority—
(i) enquiries are being made with respect to the child under section 41(1)(b); and
(ii) those enquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access and that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access to the child is required as a matter of urgency; or
(c) in the case of an application made by an authorised person—
(i) the applicant has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm;
(ii) the applicant is making enquiries with respect to the child's welfare; and
(iii) those enquiries are being frustrated by access to the child being unreasonably refused to a person authorised to seek access and that the applicant has reasonable cause to believe that access to the child is required as a matter of urgency.

(1A) In this section—
(a) "authorised person" means a person who is an authorised person for the purposes of section 28; and
(b) "a person authorised to seek access" means—
(i) in the case of an application by a local authority, an officer of the local authority or a person authorised by the authority to act on their behalf in connection with the enquiries; or
(ii) in the case of an application by an authorised person, that person.

(1B) Any person—
(a) seeking access to a child in connection with enquiries of a kind mentioned in subsection (1); and
(b) purporting to be a person authorised to do so, shall, on being asked to do so, produce some duly authenticated document as evidence that he is such a person.'.

No. 101, in page 34, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 28, and insert—
'(3) Where an emergency protection order is in force with respect to a child, the applicant—
(a) shall only exercise the power given by virtue of subsection (2)(b) in order to safeguard the welfare of the child.
(b) shall take and shall only take such action in meeting his parental responsibility for the child.'.

No. 102, in page 34, line 37, after 'examination', insert 'or other assessment'.

No. 103, in page 34, line 37, at end insert—
'(4A) Where any direction is given under subsection (4)(b), the child may, if he is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision, refuse to submit to the examination or other assessment.'.

No. 104 in page 34, line 40, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.

No. 105, in page 34, line 41, after 'examination', insert 'or assessment'.

No. 106, in page 35, line 2, leave out from 'child' to end of line 4 and insert—
'and—
(a) the applicant has exercised the power given by subsection (2)(b)(i) but it appears to him that it is safe for the child to be returned; or
(b) the application has exercised the power given by subsection (2)(b)(ii) but it appears to him that it is safe for the child to be allowed to be removed from the place in question.'.

No. 107 in page 35, line 30, after 'him', insert—
(dd) any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 31;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 39

DURATION OF EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 36, line 15, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24 and insert
'extend the period during which the order is to have effect by such period, not exceeding seven days, as it thinks fit, but may do so only if it has reasonable cause to believe that the child concerned is likely to suffer significant harm if the order is not extended.'.

No. 109, in page 36, line 33, leave out from '(8)' to 'any' in line 34.

No. 110, in page 36, line 42, leave out
'made by virtue of rules under subsection (8)'
and insert
'for the discharge of an emergency protection order'.

No. 300, in page 36, line 44, at end insert—
'(9A) No appeal may be made against the making of, or refusal to make, an emergency protection order or against any direction given by the court in connection with such an order.'.

No. 111, in page 36, line 45, after 'apply', insert—
(a) where the person who would otherwise be entitled to apply for the emergency protection order to be discharged—
(i) was given notice (in accordance with rules of court) of the hearing at which the order was made; and
(ii) was present at that hearing; or
(b)'.

No. 112, in page 37, line 5, leave out subsection (12).—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 40

REMOVAL AND ACCOMMODATION OF CHILDREN BY POLICE IN CASES OF EMERGENCY

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 37, line 33, at end insert—
`(cc) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to discover the wishes and feelings of the child;'.

No. 114, in page 37, line 38, leave out 'by or on behalf of a local authority'
and insert—
(i) by or on behalf of a local authority; or
(ii) as a refuge, in compliance with the requirements of section (Refuges for children at risk),'.

No. 115, in page 38, line 31, after 'child', insert—
'(dd) any person who is allowed to have contact with the child by virtue of an order under section 31;'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 41

LOCAL AUTHORITY'S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 39, line 46, after first 'order', insert 'a child assessment order'.

No. 376, in page 40, line 3, after first 'order', insert 'a child assessment order'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 42

POWERS TO ASSIST IN DISCOVERY OF CHILDREN WHO MAY BE IN NEED OF EMERGENCY PROTECTION

Amendments made: No. 377, in page 41, line 14, at end insert 'or (4)'.

No. 378, in page 41, line 26, at end insert
'using reasonable force if necessary'—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 43

ABDUCTION OF CHILDREN IN CARE ETC.

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 42, line 14, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 44

RECOVERY OF ABDUCTED CHILDREN ETC.

Amendments made: No. 118, in page 42, line 34, after 'constable', insert
'or an officer of the court'.

No. 379, in page 42, line 36, at end insert
'using reasonable force if necessary'.

No. 119, in page 42, line 37, after 'order' insert 'only'.

No. 120, in page 43, line 34, at end insert—
'(13) A recovery order shall have effect in Scotland as if it had been made by the Court of Session and as if that court had had jurisdiction to make it.


(14) In this section "the court", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a magistrates' court within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 45

LOCAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 43, line 35 leave out Clause 45.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 46

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 380, in page 44, line 9, after '(1)' insert
'Without prejudice to section (Rules of Court) or any other power to make such rules'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 64

REGISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 302, in page 61, line 4, at end insert—
'(13A) For the purposes of this section, a person fosters a child if—
(a) he is a local authority foster parent in relation to the child;
(b) he is a foster parent with whom the child has been placed by a voluntary organisation; or
(c) he fosters the child privately.'.

No. 258, in page 61, line 12, leave out `from registration'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 65

REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY CHILD MINDERS

Amendment made: No. 388, in page 61, line 31, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—
(a) requirements which must be imposed by local authorities under this section in prescribed circumstances;
(b) requirements of such descriptions as may be prescribed which must not be imposed by local authorities under this section.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 66

REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY PERSONS PROVIDING DAY CARE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Amendment made: No. 484, in page 62, line 19, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—
(a) requirements which must be imposed by local authorities under this section in prescribed circumstances;
(b) requirements of such descriptions as may be prescribed which must not be imposed by local authorities under this section.'.

Clause 67

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 63, line 12, leave out `registration'.

No. 131, in page 63, line 30, after 'cultural', insert `and linguistic'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 68

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN AN EMERGENCY

Amendments made: No. 389, page 63, leave out line 41 and insert
`is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm'.

No. 390, in page 64, line 6, at end insert—
'(5) Where the court imposes or varies any requirement under subsection (1), the requirement, or the requirement as varied, shall be treated for all purposes, other than those of section 70, as if it had been imposed under section 65 or (as the case may be) 66 by the authority concerned.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 70

APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 259, in page 64, line 43, at end insert—
'(bb) refusing consent under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8;'.

No. 303, in page 65, line 20, leave out 'in accordance with rules of' and insert `to the'.

No. 304, in page 65, line 20, at end insert—
'(6A) In Scotland, an appeal under subsection (6) shall be by summary application to the sheriff and shall be brought within 21 days from the date of the step to which the appeal relates.'.

No. 391, in page 65, line 20, at end insert—
'(6A) Where the court allows an appeal against the refusal or cancellation of any registration under section 64 it may impose requirements under section 65 or (as the case may be) 66.
(6B) Where the court allows an appeal against such a requirement it may, instead of cancelling the requirement, vary it.
(6C) Where the court imposes or varies any requirement under subsection (6A) or (6B) the requirement, or the requirement as varied, shall be treated for all purposes (other than this section) as if it had been imposed by the authority concerned.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 71

OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 463, in page 65, line 29, after '(1)', insert `without reasonable excuse'.

No. 464, in page 65, line 39, after '(3)', insert `without reasonable excuse'.

No. 260, in page 65, line 45, at end insert—
'(8A) if any person—
(a) acts as a child minder on domestic premises at any time when he is disqualified by regulations made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8; or
(b) contravenes any of sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 2, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(8B) Where a person contravenes sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable ground for believing, that the person in question was living or employed in the household.

(8C) Where a person contravenes sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 he shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the person whom he was employing was disqualified.'.

No. 261, in page 66, line 2, after `conviction' insert'—
(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (8), to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale;


(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (8A), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both; and
(c) in the case of any other offence,'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 8

CHILD MINDING AND DAY CARE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Amendments made: No. 328, in page 121, line 23, leave out
'in the case of an application under section 64(1)(b)'.

No. 264, in page 121, line 40, leave out `so'.

No. 265, in page 121, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) an order of a prescribed kind has been made at any time with respect to any child who has been in his care;
( ) a requirement of a prescribed kind has been imposed at any time with respect to such a child, under or by virtue of any enactment;
( ) he has at any time been refused registration under Part X or any other prescribed enactment or had any such registration cancelled.'.

No. 266, in page 121, line 44, leave out 'kind so specified' and insert 'prescribed kind'.

No. 267, in page 121, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) A person who lives—
(a) in the same household as a person who is himself disqualified by the regulations; or
(b) in a household at which any such person is employed,
shall be disqualified unless he has disclosed the fact to the appropriate local authority and obtained their written consent.

(4) A person who is disqualified shall not provide day care, or be concerned in the management of, or have any financial interest in, any provision of day care unless he has—
(a) disclosed the fact to the appropriate local authority; and
(b) obtained their written consent.

(5) No person shall employ, in connection with the provision of day care a person who is disqualified, unless he has—
(a) disclosed to the appropriate local authority the fact that that person is so disqualified; and
(b) obtained their written consent.

(6) In this paragraph "enactment" means any enactment having effect, at any time, in any part of the United Kingdom.'.

No. 329, in page 122, line 13, leave out
'residential special school in Scotland' and insert 'school'.

No. 330, in page 122, line 14, at end insert—
'(ff) self-governing school'.

No. 220, in page 122, leave out lines 15 to 21.

No. 414, in page 122, line 24, leave out 'Act of 1980' and insert 'Education (Scotland) Act 1980'.

No. 331, in page 122, line 28, after 'question', insert 'as part of the establishment's activities'.

No. 332, in page 122, line 36, leave out '"grant aided", "special school"' and insert "grant aided school", "self-governing school".'.

No. 467, in page 122, line 42, after 'a', insert 'registered'.

No. 468, in page 123, line 1, leave out from 'home' to '; or' in line 2 and insert
'provided, equipped and maintained by the Secretary of State;'.

No. 333, in page 123, line 9, after 'question', insert
'as part of the establishment's activities'.

No. 334, in page 123, line 11, at end insert—
'(3) In this paragraph "a health service hospital" includes a health service hospital within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.'.

No. 221, in page 123, line 43, at end insert—

'Co-operation between authorities

7A.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority that any local education authority or, in Scotland, education authority could, by taking any specified action, help in the exercise of any of their functions under Part X, they may request the help of that local education authority, or education authority specifying the action in question.

(2) An authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request if it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 72

INSPECTION OF CHILDREN'S HOMES ETC. BY PERSONS AUTHORISED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 262, in page 66, line 8, leave out 'registered'.

No. 132, in page 66, line 13, at end insert—
'(cc) premises in which a child who is being accommodated by or on behalf of a health authority is living;'.

No. 133, in page 66, line 20, at end insert—
`(ff) premises on which any person is acting as a child minder;'.

No. 134, in page 66, line 21, after 'premises', insert
'with respect to which a person is'.

No. 392, in page 66, line 22, at end insert 'required to be'.

No. 135, in page 66, line 24, at end insert—
'(j) premises which are provided by a local authority and in which any service is provided by that authority under Part III.'.

No. 305, in page 66, line 24, at end insert—
'(hh) independent school providing accommodation for any child.'.

No. 306, in page 66, line 32, after '(1)', insert
'or, in relation to Scotland, subsection (1)(ff) or (g)'.

No. 136, in page 66, line 33, leave out 'or'.

No. 137, in page 66, line 35, at end insert
'or
(d) the discharge by any local authority of any of their functions under this Act.'.

No. 263, in page 66, line 40, leave out 'voluntary home or registered'.

No. 393, in page 66, line 41, at end insert—
'(cc) proprietor of an independent school;'

No. 138, in page 66, line 44, after 'authority', insert 'health authority'.

No. 139, in page 67, line 7, leave out 'persons', and insert `children'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 74

FINANCIAL SUPPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 69, line 1, leave out 'provide, equip and maintain' and insert
'arrange for the provision, equipment and maintenance of'.

No. 141, in page 69, line 4, after 'are', insert 'or will be'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 75

RESEARCH AND RETURNS OF INFORMATION

Amemdments made: No. 142, in page 70, line 7, after 'each', insert 'magistrates'.

No. 143, in page 70, line 8, leave out 'transmit to him' and insert
'transmit—
(a) to such person as may be specified in the direction; and


(b) '.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 76

LOCAL AUTHORITY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY DUTY: DEAFULT POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 144, in page 70, line 37 at end insert—
'(1A) An order under subsection (1) shall give the Secretary of State's reasons for making it.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 80

CARE AND SUPERVISION ORDERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. 1969 C. 54

Amendments made: No. 394, in page 72, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The powers of the court to make care orders—
(a) under section 7(7)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (alteration in treatment of young offenders etc.); and
(b) under section 15(1) of that Act, on discharging a supervision order made under section 7(i)(b) of that Act,
are hereby abolished.'.
(

No. 145, in page 72, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) The powers given by that Act to include requirements in supervision orders shall have effect subject to amendments made by Schedule 10.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 81

EFFECT AND DURATION OF ORDERS ETC—

No. 146, in page 72, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) The making of a care order with respect to a child who is a ward of court brings that wardship to an end.
(2B) The making of a care order with respect to a child who is the subject of a school attendance order made under section 37 of the Education Act 1944 discharges the school attendance order.
(2C) Where an emergency protection order is made with respect to a child who is in care, the care order shall have effect subject to the emergency protection order.'.

No. 395, in page 72, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) The making of a care order with respect to a child who is the subject of a supervision order discharges that other order.'.

No. 147, in page 73, line 3, leave out '8(5)' and insert `8(5A)'.

No. 148, in page 73, line 21, at end insert—
'(bb) the discharge of an education supervision order;

No. 396, in page 73, line 23, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
'(d) a child assessment order'.

No. 149, in page 73, line 28, leave out '(10)' and insert '(11)'.

No. 242, in page 73, line 37, leave out clause 82.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 83

PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 307, in page 74, line 5, leave out clause 83.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 84

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF WARDSHIP JURISDICTION

Amendments made: No. 150, in page 74, line 17 after 'authority', insert—
'(bb) so as to make a child who is the subject of a care order a ward of court;'.

No. 151, in page 74, line 19 leave out 'issue' and insert' question'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 85

TRANSFERS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND WAIFS AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE CHANNEL ISLANDS OR THE ISLE OF MAN

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 74, line 43, after 'effect', insert 'in prescribed circumstances'.

No. 153, in page 75, line 4, after 'effect', insert 'in prescribed circumstances'.

No. 397, in page 75, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for the order concerned to cease to have effect for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland, or (as the case may be) the law of England and Wales, if prescribed conditions are satisfied.'.

No. 154, in page 75, line 13, after 'effect', insert 'in prescribed circumstances'.

No. 398, in page 75, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) Where a child who is in the care of a local authority is lawfully taken to live in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands, the care order in question shall cease to have effect if the conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State are satisfied.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 86

POWER OF CONSTABLE TO ASSIST IN EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS TO SEARCH FOR CHILDREN OR INSPECT PREMISES

Amendments made: No. 399, in page 75, line 36, at end insert 'using reasonable force if necessary'.

No. 156, in page 76, line 11, leave out '64' and insert '69'.

No. 308, in page 76, line 11, leave out 'and 78' and insert
'78 and (Welfare of children accommodated in independent schools)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 88

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 76, line 24, leave out 'conferred by' and insert
'of the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State under'.

No. 309, in page 76, line 25, after 'regulations', insert 'or rules'.

No. 310, in page 76, line 25, leave out 'or 76' and insert
'76 or (Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings)(4)'.

No. 311, in page 76, line 29, after '15(4)', insert
', (Application to Channel Islands) or 91(2)'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 89

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 77, line 7, after 'means', insert
'subject to paragraph 16 of Schedule 1'.
No. 159, in page 77, line 7, at end insert—


'"child assessment order" has the meaning given by section (Child assessment orders)(2);'

No. 160, in page 77, line 7, at end insert—
'"child minder" has the meaning given by section 64;'.

No. 312, in page 77. line 12, after `parties', insert 'as foster parents'.

No. 313, in page 77, line 14, at end insert—
'"children's home" has the same meaning as in section 56.'.

No. 400, in page 77, line 16, at end insert—
'"day care" has the same meaning as in section 16;'.

No. 161, in page 77, line 20, at end insert—
'"domestic premises" has the meaning given by section 64(12);'.

No. 162, in page 77, line 25, at end insert—
'"guardian of a child" means a guardian (other than a guardian of the estate of a child) appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 5'.

No. 314, in page 77, line 40, after 'means,' insert
'in relation to England and Wales'.

No. 315, in page 77, line 42, at end insert
'and, in relation to Scotland, a local authority within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968'.

No. 465. in page 78, line 22, leave out 'supervised child' and insert
'child who is the subject of a supervision order'.

No. 163, in page 78, line 23, at end insert—
`school" has the same meaning as it has in the Education Act 1944 or, in relation to Scotland, in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;'.

No. 164, in page 79, line 10, leave out subsection (5).

No. 165, in page 79, line 12, at end insert—
'(5A) References in this Act to accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority are references to accommodation so provided in the exercise of functions which stand referred to the social services committee of that or any other local authority under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.'.

No. 166, in page 79, line 21, at end insert—
'(6A) References in this Act to children who are in need shall be construed in accordance with section 15 '—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 91

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 368, in page 80, line 1, after `(2)' insert
'Sections (Tests to establish paternity) and (Evidence given by, or with respect to, children) (3) to (7), and paragraph 26AA of Schedule 10 shall come into force on the passing of this Act and paragraph 26A of Schedule 10 shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed but otherwise'.

No. 316, in page 80, line 2, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State, or both acting jointly'.

No. 167, in page 80, line 8, after 'provisions', insert 'and savings'.

No. 401, in page 80, line 9, at end insert—
'(7A) An order under subsection (2) may make such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the person making the order to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order, including—
(a) provisions adding to or modifying the provisions of Schedule 12; and
(b) such adaptations—
(i) of the provisions brought into force by the order; and
(ii) of any provisions of this Act then in force, as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act.

(7B) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such amendments or repeals, in such enactments as may be specified in the order, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of this Act.'.

No. 402, in page 80, line 13, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
'(9) The following provisions of this Act extend to Scotland—
section 17;
section 22(9);
section 44(13);
Part X;
section 72(1)(ff) and (g), (2) to (4), (5)(a), (b) and (g) and (6) to (12;
section 79;
section 88 (so far as necessary);
section 89 (so far as necessary);
subsections (1) to (3), (7A) and (7B) and this subsection;
in Schedule 2, paragraph 22;
in Schedule 10, paragraphs 1, 4 to 7, 15, 22B, 23B(a) and 26F to 27;
in Schedule 11, paragraphs 13 to 16, 24A, 27A, 27B, 28A, 31A, 35A, 35B, 35G(a) and (b) and 35J;
in Schedule 12, paragraphs 1, 33 and 34;
in Schedule 13, the entries relating to—
(a) the Custody of Children Act 1891;
(b) the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948;
(c) section 53(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963;
(d) section 60 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968;
(e) the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;
(f) the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978;
(g) the Child Care Act 1980;
(h) the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984;
(i) the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985; and
(j) the Family Law Act 1986.'.

No. 403, in page 80, line 19, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
'(10) The following provisions of this Act extend to Northern Ireland—
section 44;
section 85(1)(b), (1A) and (3)(a)(i);
subsections (1) to (3), (7A) and (7B) and this subsection;
in Schedule 2, paragraph 22;
in Schedule 10, paragraphs 4 to 7, 15 and 22B;
in Schedule 11, paragraphs 14, 15, 27A, 27B, 31A, 35A, 35B, 35G(c) to (e), and 35H to 35J;
in Schedule 12, paragraphs 18, 28 to 30 and 38(a); and
in Schedule 13, the entries relating to the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, the Children Act 1975, the Child Care Act 1980, the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the Family Law Act 1986.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Title

No. 359, in title, page 1, line 5 after `fostering', insert 'child minding and day care for young children'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope that my colleagues do not mind me going in to bat first in this Third Reading debate, but I want the opportunity to say how grateful I am to all hon. Members who have worked with me on the Bill, preparing it and advising us on it for all that they have done.
As I have said throughout the Bill, and it bears repeating one last time, it is not every day that one gets the chance to have a comprehensive reform of private and public law on children. It has been a major undertaking


which has required the codification of a significant body of statute law and major reforms to that law to produce very substantial advances. For example, the law relating to the protection of abused children has been changed, as have the rights of other family members including grandparents and others that we discussed earlier today. Quite fundamental changes have been made to court procedure and other issues of law.
Therefore, I say with sincerity to those of my officials who have worked so hard on the Bill that they have carried out a herculean task with great patience, as have those outside the House who have helped and advised us. While I know that one or two of them feel a little dissatisfied with certain points, I believe that the overwhelming feeling will be that Parliament has done a good job. I hope that that does not sound complacent, but I believe it to be the case. I am grateful to them for helping us to do a good job.
I should also like to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for his stalwart assistance in all stages of the Bill, and I should very much like to thank the Opposition for the manner in which the Bill has been conducted.
It has been a real pleasure and a privilege to work with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the Bill, because narrow partisan motives have never intruded in his consideration of the matter. It struck a blow for the ability of Members of Parliament to work together in that, notwithstanding our differences on other political issues, we were able to sit down together and have joint meetings with some of the interest groups. That shows Parliament at its best. While it is very important for people in politics to know when they disagree, and not to be afraid to say so, it is equally important that people know that there are issues which can bring us together. The leadership of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, assisted by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has been exemplary. I should like to thank all the Opposition Members for their help, including the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I do not think that anyone could feel that their views had been shut out or who will not feel some pride in our collective achievement.
Obviously, what we have done goes for the other place. We have sent back a whole raft of amendments, but that reflects the seriousness with which we have considered the Bill, and the seriousness with which the other place started consideration of the Bill. I believe that the Bill returns to the other place the better for its Commons consideration, and I hope that those in the other place will forgive us for the volume of amendments and recognise that, with any luck, not only have we managed to make the policy lines in the Bill better, although in every particular we have not gone as far as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) would like. However, thanks to the stalwart work of the parliamentary draftsmen, to whom great thanks are due, we have gone through the Bill ironing out little verbal infelicities and problems that can sometimes make lawyers a great deal of money if they slip into the finished product.
I conclude with a personal word. It has been my privilege during my time as a Minister to participate in a great deal of legislation. I remember with particular affection those on which the House was able to work together on a shared endeavour. I think particularly of working on the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 with certain Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). That was an important Bill

which is standing the test of time. The same was true of the work on the Animals (Scientific) Procedures Act 1986 which has managed to give us the most modern system of animal law on the vexed, difficult and emotionally troubling subject of animal experiments. If those Bills are good, it is not because of anything that I did, but because hon. Members, with a few exceptions, joined to work sensibly on them. The Children Bill will join that little Pantheon as a happy experience for me.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for his kind and generous remarks. I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the thanks that he offered to his officials and to the voluntary organisations. The voluntary organisations did much work and showed much commitment throughout our proceedings. Some of them may be disappointed, but none should feel that any hon. Members believe that they gave less than their best. I was delighted by the Minister's comments about the other place. It is not often that hon. Members can truthfully say that we are sending back a better Bill for the other place to consider.
I shall not rehearse the arguments about the guillotine, although I regret that I was not present for that debate. It is fair to say that the skill of the Minister for Health—the hon. and learned Gentleman was extremely skilful, as was the Solicitor-General, whatever disagreements I may have had with him—was not reciprocated by his ministerial colleagues. The Minister for Health will not complain, but I think that I am entitled to do so on his behalf. Given the time that the Minister spent on the Bill, whatever arguments we may have had about the guillotine it is overwhelmingly clear that the Government's legislative machinery was overloaded this Session. The noble Lord Whitelaw was certainly right about that.
It is remarkable that the Bill has reached its present stage. In all candour, given that there is such a gulf of philosophy between the Government and the Opposition, and given the constraints of time, it is remarkable that we are endorsing a Bill which represents such consensus. Future historians may find that a remarkable achievement.
It is appropriate to repeat hon. Members' comments when they acknowledge the input of the Select Committee on Social Services, which used to be chaired by one of our former colleagues, Renee Short. It is a tribute to her and to her colleagues that they campaigned for many of the measures now in the Bill. The Minister will agree that her plea from the heart that future legislation should not be implemented in dribs and drabs should be acknowledged by the House. I am sure that the Minister will not mind if I pay tribute to my hon. Friends. In presenting the Labour party's views and policy, they did a service to Parliament and to the nation. They will agree that when the Bill is enacted, it will represent a framework for future legislation.
The Minister rightly said that the Bill does not go as far as we should wish in many respects. That was self-evident from our debate on family courts. As to children's rights, there is a case for the appointment of independent persons and for complaints procedures. My hon. Friends look forward to the time when we have a children's ombudsman, and I believe that the case for that has been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who unfortunately has had to leave our proceedings having once again made an excellent


contribution, raised the issue of training. Training is essential to reach all the objectives which hon. Members have set and which are included in the legislation.
Despite the Minister's clear co-operation, the House is bound to want to monitor how well the assessment orders work. That is important, especially in view of our complex discussions. In time we will want to look again at the ouster orders which were debated, albeit briefly, this morning and the important issue of termination of voluntary care.
It is appropriate that I should ask the Minister to give a commitment—if not this afternoon, then fairly soon—about the implementation dates that the Government have in mind. We understood earlier that they were thinking of April 1991, but more recently we have heard about autumn 1991. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the correction. Perhaps what was said the other night was a slip of the tongue as well.
On the issue of inspection of recreation and play areas, the amount of £10 was mentioned. If the Minister finds time, we should like to know whether that covers inspection as well as costs.
Some elements of the Bill have not yet taken into account some of the strong representations made to us. The representations that we received, especially from young runaways, made me feel that their plight was the most moving of any of the issues that were put to us during the Bill's passage. I hope that it will be seriously considered.
I know that there may be a struggle between the various Departments represented in the House and the Treasury, but resources are essential if the Bill is to have meaning. There is an acute shortage of social workers in many parts of the country. It is vital that those resources are made available for other aspects of social services and education.
On Second Reading I endeavoured to outline the simple fact that family life as we once understood it did not necessarily exist today. There are a huge number of single-parent families. There have been changes which suggest that society is changing. I hope that the Bill will reflect those changes and respond to the challenges.
My hon. Friends the Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Wakefield and for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) have made a major contribution to our discussions, and I thank them. I hope that in time, after we have listened to those responsible for the Bill's implementation, to children, families, parents and carers, legislation even more progressive than the Bill will be produced.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is present because he provided distin-guished chairmanship of the Committee. Both sides of the House have been conscious of the sensitivities of children who, in many cases, are the most vulnerable in our society. We have tried to reflect that concern.
I know that my hon. Friends will approve if I say that it is, perhaps, appropriate to end my speech with a quotation from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. Although he is not present, he has shown a great interest in the Bill. On Second Reading he quoted Charles Dickens:

In the little world in which children have their existence, whomsoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived or so finely felt as injustice.
If, through this Bill, we have managed to remove some of those injustices, the whole exercise has been more than worthwhile.

Mr. Roger Sims: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister was kind enough to refer to some of the outside organisations which have been interested in this measure. As a member of the central executive committee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, it might be appropriate if, on its behalf and that of all the other organisations involved, I reciprocated and told my hon. and learned Friend how grateful they are to him and his officials for the way in which they have co-operated in producing the Bill. As an hon. Member who has served in Committee on this Bill, in turn I should like to thank all those organisations for keeping us acquainted with their views, which has assisted us in improving the Bill. I am sure that the House will understand if I make particular mention of Avril Wilson, who has quite literally been here day and night briefing Members of both Houses and of all parties.
We have sought, through the Bill, to achieve a balance between the rights of children, the rights of parents and, of course, the duties of the state. Perhaps it is the latter that is the most difficult to define and the most sensitive to administer. In what circumstances should the state intervene in family matters in the shape of a local authority social worker or an NSPCC officer? I hasten to add that an NSPCC officer is not an agent of central or local government; but, uniquely, the Bill gives such an officer similar powers to those of a local authority social worker. I hope and pray that we have the balance right. I hope that we have made it clear when and how such intervention should take place.
Our task will soon be completed, but that of the practitioners in the field has barely begun. They have to translate our words into actions—both those who administer social work and the social workers in the field. Let us be under no illusions; changes will cost money. It is essential that the resources are made available for the implementation of the Act. The figures quoted in the preamble to the Bill are, I am pretty sure, not a maximum estimate, so at least that amount will be needed.
We must remember that social workers are human beings and, like all of us, occasionally make mistakes and misjudgments. That is especially true as they are dealing with people who, perhaps, have more than the average quota of weaknesses and are sometimes unpredictable and unstable. Mistakes are bound to happen. I fear that the Bill cannot entirely remove the possibility of further cases of the kind that have featured in our discussions, but I hope that there will be far fewer of them.
The Bill will soon be an Act and our job will be done. Others will have the task of learning the changes and additions that have been written into the law and will have to put them into practice in their everyday work. As they do so, they can be certain that our thoughts, prayers and good wishes will be with them.

Mr. Fearn: There is no doubt that the Bill is to be welcomed. It brings together many different areas of both public and private law relating to children. Its central theme is the interests and welfare of children. That is what we have all had at heart. The objective is to achieve that through a balance between a child's right to be protected and the rights, responsibilities and duties of parents and the state.
During our proceedings, there has been a consensus and a willingness to co-operate from all sides. A tremendous number of amendments have been tabled at all stages. Some were accepted by the Government and many were withdrawn on promises of consideration by Ministers. In many instances, the Government have honoured their promises and have tabled amendments to cover such points. I believe that that is what has happened in relation to grandparents' rights. However, not all the Government's amendments have been completely satisfactory and a few have upset the balance in favour of intervention. Nevertheless, on the whole the result is welcome.
One of our main complaints relates to the speed with which the Bill has passed through the House. Some crucial Government amendments were tabled at a very late stage, making it difficult for us to assess their full implications. I know that the people responsible for the children's lobby are exhausted. The number of amendments tabled and selected on Report highlights the amount of work and effort that has gone into the Bill.
The Bill is obviously a vast improvement on the present legislation, but it is a great shame that such legislation, which is so important to the welfare of our children, did not include that all-embracing item for which hon. Members of all parties have been crying out. I refer to a family court system. That is to be regretted. Nevertheless, the Bill has almost got it right and I am pleased to see its historic passage today.

Mr. Rowe: Although I welcome the Bill hugely, one is bound to feel some disappointment that one intractable problem has still not been dealt with satisfactorily. I refer to what are usually known as fathers' rights. It is still too easy for children to slip away from one parent and it is often extremely difficult for that parent to have access to those children. Although the Bill has done its best to address that difficult problem, I am sure that the House will have to return to it.
I pay warm tribute to the voluntary organisations that have done so much work. The way in which they have worked together is a model which I very much hope that the voluntary sector will take on board for our discussions on the White Paper on community care. The same collaboration throughout the voluntary sector will improve the debate enormously.
Finally, we have all been concerned with the casualties of society and the Bill is an attempt to provide a more just way of dealing with those casualties and to strengthen some of the bulwarks against them ever happening. One of the great issues of the next decade will be how we are to create the kind of society that will make it easier for parents to discharge their responsibilities in such a way

that there will be no need for state intervention. We shall have to consider how we, as a society, are responsible for all our children.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who was right to say that the Bill is a consequence of the many tragedies to which we have referred throughout our proceedings. Those of us who followed the Cleveland child abuse crisis, such as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), were always struck by the way in which it brought about new events and new circumstances beyond anyone's imagination. Indeed, who would have imagined that this week, when dealing with the Children Bill, we would have learnt so much about the Associated British Ports Bill? Who would have imagined that in the middle of a debate on a guillotine motion my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am pleased to see in his place, would announce the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It was kind of him to do so. Even the new Foreign Secretary, who writes thriller novels, could not have written a script more perfect and more full of whodunnits than the events that occurred last night.
The Minister of State was kind enough to refer to the variety of Bills on which it has been a pleasure to work with me, but he did not mention the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which was one of the earlier Bills on which we worked together. There were 69 sittings of that Committee, but I will not go into the connotations of 69 as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clark) is sitting on the Front Bench. We changed the law in such a way, however, that cases such as the Guildford Four might not happen again.
Clause 1 talks about the interests of the children being paramount. That is absolutey right and essential. Lord Justice Butler-Sloss said in her report:
A child is a person and not an object of concern
We must all agree with that.
Clause 2 deals with parental responsibility. I agree with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that we must get the balance right between the rights of children and of their parents. The Bill goes some way to achieving that end. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will be happy that clause 9 enables grandparents to apply for a section 7 order at any time, provided that they first get the court's permission by showing that they have good reason. Grandparents will almost certainly expect to be allowed to make representation under the new complaints procedure in clause 23 relating to access to children. My hon. Friend must feel a great sense of satisfaction at some of the changes contained in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst also referred to social workers and the great responsibility that they bear. I refer again to the Butler-Sloss report which stated:
no single agency—Health, Social Services, Police or voluntary organisation—has the pre-eminent responsibility in the assessment of child abuse generally and child sexual abuse specifically. Each agency has a prime responsibility for a particular aspect of the problem. Neither children's nor parents' needs and rights can be adequately met or protected unless agencies agree a framework for their inter-action. The statutory duties of the Social Service Departments must be recognised".


Social workers therefore, will not be obliged to take full responsibility. The hon. Member for Chislehurst also mentioned the family court and on that the Butler-Sloss report noted:
We recognise the considerable procedural advantages of the ability to move cases at any time from one tier of the Court to another, which would be achieved by the setting up of a Family Court.
We have not got a family court from the Bill, but as the Solicitor-General knows, we have unified jurisdiction under new clause 1. We also welcome the child assessment orders contained in new clause 13. They will be a new tool for social workers and we are pleased to note that clause 38 and the emergency protection orders get rid of the dreaded place of safety order which was used to such ill effect in Cleveland. We also welcome the rights of access contained in the Bill.
The final debate on the final day of our deliberations on the Children Bill takes place during the mid-term holiday and children are able to follow our proceedings. Recently I reviewed a book about children who had been abandoned throughout the ages. The message of the Bill is that we are not abandoning children's or parents' rights. We are seeking, with foresight rather than with hindsight, to look to the future. I am glad to have been part of the parliamentary team that considered the Bill, which now goes back to the other place before appearing on the statute book.

Mr. Devlin: I commend this excellent Bill to the House and to the country. We nearly lost it earlier in the week and it is with a sigh of relief that I note that it is now moving safely out of the House into the other place before proceeding to the statute book. The Bill is long overdue and its effects are much awaited.
As I come from Cleveland it was an especial honour to serve on the Committee. During my first year in Parliament I was witness to much suffering, which will now be alleviated by the measures we have introduced. It is of particular pleasure to me that the place of safety order has been abolished and the emergency protection order has been introduced along with a number of new measures, not least those pertaining to grandparents. The most beautiful part of the Bill, however, is that the interests of the child are paramount. That is stated unequivocally at the beginning of the Bill.
I pay tribute to the officials who served the Committee so well and to all the voluntary organisations—particularly Peter Smith of the family courts campaign—which have been of great assistance to members of the Committee and of the all-party children's group headed by Baroness Faithful]. I also pay tribute to the one unsung hero who has not been mentioned today—the Chairman of the Standing Committee——

Ms. Armstrong: He has been mentioned.

Mr. Devlin: I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who may have been mentioned when I stepped out to answer the phone. This is a subject close to his heart.
It has been of great interest to me go serve on a Bill which until recently was approached in a non-partisan way. I have a high regard for many Opposition Members

who served on the Standing Committee, so it was with some regret that I learnt from the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette yesterday that I had been criticised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for failing to support an amendment on family courts, since I gave clear and good reasons for doing so.
The Bill goes from here to another place with a large number of amendments. I know that their Lordships will welcome it even though they are going bananas about the amount of work that they will have to do.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am glad to wind up a debate on what has been a happy Bill and to which, I am the first to acknowledge, all sides of the House have greatly contributed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for the major contribution that he and the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) made to our common objective.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West was kind enough to say that if we had had our differences we had made them up, and I concur with that. It is curious that our differences were due to a common over-enthusiasm to reach our goal and the speed at which we could properly reach it.
I join other members of the Committee and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in thanking the officials who gave us so much help throughout the Bill and the outside organisations which played such a constructive role in its creation. My part has been to deal with the early clauses, which cover crucial aspects such as the fact that the welfare of the child should be paramount, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, and important concepts to do with parental responsibility, which should never be forgotten. All too often we deal with problems because parental control and responsibility have broken down.
The one great area of debate on Report was the family court. On that we are divided not as to objectives but merely as to the speed and means at which we should reach them. We can congratulate ourselves, however, on having created a unified body of child law which will apply at every level—to the High Court, to the family division in the county courts and in the magistrates courts. That paves the way for a unified jurisdiction, with the possibility of cases moving from the magistrates courts up to the county or high courts and commencing at, or rapidly moving to start at, the appropriate level for their decision.
By creating this model and sending it back to the other place, we can say that we have created what may prove to be a model for a wider form of family court of the future, once the important reports from the Law Commission and from other bodies—and the important report from Newcastle university on conciliation—have had time to be properly digested.
As for how long all this will take, I confirm what I said the other day—the Bill should be up and running in the next two years, so by the autumn of 1991 we should be well down the road. I hope that that is of assistance—

Mr. Devlin: rose——

The Solicitor-General: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend, who is looking at the clock with all the intelligence that he usually brings to these occasions.
I am glad to commend the Bill on Third Reading to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 1st November, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)), if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to the National Health Service have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question thereon.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Orders of the Day — Opencast Mining (Derbyshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Sackville.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: This debate is the story of two opencast sites, one of which was proposed before the last general election and which was to be near the villages of Clowne and Barlborough in my constituency, known hereafter as the Slayley site. The second one is the subject of another application by the Opencast Executive of British Coal for further opencast mining in part of Barlborough but in the main in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
We all know that in the past few years there have been many pit closures. We also know that the nation has enough deep-mine coal for 300 years and that it can be used by the nation to offset balance of payment deficits and to support the economy. As a result of pit closures in the past few years, much of that coal has been sterilised because when pits are shut and people are thrown on the dole, the opencast mining that is allowed strips off only about 25 per cent. of the total amount of coal available. The remainder of that coal could be made available by deep mining.
That is not the only problem with opencast mining. It affects the environment as well. We hear much talk in the House about the environment, but my constituents are fed up to the back teeth with the Opencast Executive being granted permission by the Government, even after appeals, to opencast in and around rural villages causing dust and noise and massive movements of lorries. There is also a loss of jobs.
In December 1986 Derbyshire county council turned down an application for the Slayley site. It was supported by Bolsover district council, Clowne parish council, Barlborough parish council and parish councils in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. All the communities in north Derbyshire and Bolsover opposed that application. Local democracy got to work and meetings of several hundred people took place in the villages. They talked about what would happen if the opencast mining application was granted. It would have meant the extraction of 300,000 tons over 200 acres and 100 lorry movements every day. The Monnies ancient burial site would have been ripped apart and it would have destroyed the wildlife and fauna in the vast areas around Barlborough, Clowne and Renishaw. The noise would have been horrific throughout the five years of extraction and over the period of the second five years when they started to take the clay.
Opencast mining makes a great big hole and creates vast profits, principally for the contractors. Many people within and outside the country, some of them with great big tankers, are only too anxious to fill those holes with toxic waste. That is why Derbyshire county council was careful to say in its objections that not only would opencast mining be detrimental to the amenity and the environment, but that the exposed clays which underlie the coal might be considered as a possible site for the dumping of nuclear waste. Therefore, we had a multitude of reasons for opposing the application. I opposed it and so did all the


people in the community. Not only would it cause much environmental change but it would also create a possible site for toxic waste or become a nuclear dump.
We had an inquiry because British Coal decided to appeal against the decision of Derbyshire county council and the other local authorities. We went to the inquiry with a great deal of confidence. People from the villages turned out in their hundreds and put the case before the inspctor who was sent from the Department of the Environment. After several days the report went back. The inspector's report said that because this was a relatively built-up area, the noise levels would have to be such that British Coal could carry out opencast mining for only 11 seconds per day. Naturally, British Coal said that it could not mine coal on that basis because it was uneconomic, so the villagers and local democracy in the area of Bolsover and north-east Derbyshire triumphed. That was in July 1987 and the report was issued shortly afterwards, to the villagers' jubilation. Then the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was replaced as Secretary of State for the Environment in the Cabinet reshuffle—not the one yesterday but the one in July this year—by the so-called green and friendly Environment Minister, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). Meantime British Coal asked for the conditions to be varied so that it could opencast the site and get ahead with this massive operation. The previous Secretary of State accepted his inspectors' report about allowing mining for only 11 seconds per day. What did the new Secretary of State do in his first week in his job? Contrary to all the talk on the television and articles that have been written about him, the new, green Secretary of State overturned the decision and allowed British Coal to opencast despite the conditions that had been put on it. That was a savage decision. In view of his reputation, it would have been decent for the Secretary of State to have said, "No, I shall send this back for a further appeal. I intend to have this examined so that local democracy can play a part in the new decision before I agree to British Coal's variation of the conditions." Instead, he trampled all over the civic rights of people in Barlborough and Clowne. No inquiry was allowed and the so-called green and friendly Secretary of State, despite all the talk that we have heard about him, allowed British Coal to go ahead.
It is time that we spoke the truth in this place. We hear a lot about the environment and about the new society of the 1990s. We hear how the Government intend to look after the interests of those who live in the green belt, but this is part of the green belt. It is one thing for the new Secretary of State for the Environment to overturn decisions about the green belt in Tory-held constituencies and get praise from Tory Members. Yet in Labour-held constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), it is a different story altogether. He is not worried about the green belt in Bolsover, Barlborough, Clowne, Renishaw, Killamarsh, Slayley and in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is happy to let British Coal take its massive machines into those areas and create all the noise and dust possible.
British Coal, not content with asking for the conditions to be varied and agreed by the Government, decided to use a further application called the Pinnock application.

Pinnock is mainly in my hon. Friend's constituency. He, like me, opposes opencast mining. He had a discussion with me and one or two others and we brought a massive petition to the House some time ago objecting to the application. Nearly everybody in the area objected and both my hon. Friend and I objected as Members of Parliament.
We want this deputy Subbuteo who has been sent to look after the Secretary of State's interests to go back to the Secretary of State and tell him, "You did wrong to allow the conditions to be varied. You have not played the game by the people living in Barlborough and Clowne. You ought to do the decent thing and turn down the Pinnock application when it comes to the Department, as it will after it has been to the appeal and the inspectors." He should say that despite the decision made in July in respect of Slayley, the job has not been done properly. The Government should allow the people in the villages to take part in the Slayley decision rather than proceeding in such a heavy-handed and bureaucratic manner.
We have the Pinnock site, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East will refer if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a massive site. There are about 40 million tonnes of coal stocked in Britain, so there cannot be such a great need for more coal. However, the Government want to line the pockets of their friends and so they are engaged in opencast mining.
We are seeing the prelude to privatisation. If the Conservative party is successful at the next general election, which is unlikely after yesterday's debacle, what better can it do than to say to its friends that the Government will privatise the coal industry where it matters—not all of it—and give them the juicy bits? They will be able to say that their green and friendly Environment Minister has allowed applications for opencast mining in all the coalfields of Britain in the past few months, including north Derbyshire.

Mr. Frank Haynes: And my area.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Nottinghamshire too.
British Coal is in league with the Government and is piling up a list of applications for opencast mining so that their friends can make money hand over fist. I am talking about the large combines that make money out of opencast operations. When that part of the industry is privatised, it will be a much juicier operation.
We have a new application for Pinnock. What does it mean? It means another 15,000 tonnes of coal. With a 66-hour week, a 32-tonne load will be leaving the site every eight minutes of the 12-hour working day. There will be a further 200 lorry movements on the Worksop road, which runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
The game is all about making money without taking any notice of the environmental concerns of those who live in the areas affected. The game also includes privatisation. Despite all the unco-ordination between the Prime Minister and the Treasury, the Departments of Energy and of the Environment are working hand in glove.
We know that a short while ago the conditions were varied for applications for opencast mining. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East will remember that the rules were changed and district and county councils told that when they received planning applications for opencast mining they should take into


account market requirements as well as lorry movements and normal planning conditions. That was part and parcel of a plan to shut more deep mines and to introduce opencast mining on a fairly massive scale. This means short termism. It is easy to exploit opencast coal, but that means that 75 per cent. of the coal, which would otherwise be mined by deep-mine methods, will be sterile for ever so that instead of 300 years of coal we shall be talking about 50 or 60 years.
The Minister has been sent here to do the dirty work on behalf of his gaffer. We say that he should refuse the Pinnock application when it arrives on his desk, assuming that an appeal takes place. We have harnessed local opinion at parish, district and county level. My hon. Friends and I have canvassed all the local authorities. We are asking them to understand that there is plenty of coal in Britain and that they should respect the civic rights of those who live in the area of Barlborough and Clowne. The Minister should remember that there is a green belt in north Derbyshire and other coalfield areas, just as there is in Surrey and other posh areas of suburbia. The Minister must recall the Slayley application, despite the decision taken in July, and reject it. The issue should be referred back to the people who live in the area and who will be affected.
The Minister will have his say shortly, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East wants to say something, too. I have no doubt that my argument could be repeated by almost every hon. Member who lives in a coalfield area. We are fed up to the back teeth with opencast mining. In my constituency alone, there are about half a dozen rubbish dumps and potential toxic waste and nuclear dumps as a result of opencast mining developments. When they extracted the coal at Morton, they dumped dioxins. In other areas they use opencast sites for all kinds of other toxic waste. A firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East which deals in toxic waste is all too ready to dump it in opencast holes. People will make money out of opencast mining and even more money by filling the holes with toxic or nuclear waste.
The Minister has a duty to the nation, not just to the plush parts of Surrey and Sussex where the Tory constituencies lie. I know that Tories in those areas are trying to save the necks of their Members of Parliament but Ministers are supposed to be national Ministers and look after interests throughout the land. The Minister should begin by accepting the conditions and proposals that I have advanced today.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in at least one debate to be answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I hoped to speak on the ways and means resolution on the Football Spectators Bill earlier today but before I got a chance to say anything someone went and moved the closure on us.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on introducing this debate on a topic that is important to my constituents in north-east Derbyshire. As my hon. Friend said, a large part of the Pinnock development would fall within north-east Derbyshire—to the north of Mastin moor and over to Renishaw, where Renishaw Park pit has just been closed.

Mines are being closed and opencast is taking over from deep-mined coal. That is an addition to the danger of coal imports under the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—the Humber ports Bill—against whose advance a vigorous battle is being conducted in the House.
On 13 June 1988 I presented to the House a petition from the people of Mastin moor, who stressed many of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Those points were not fully answered in the supplement to the Votes and Proceedings, in which responses to petitions are given. On 13 July the Department gave a brief reply to the effect that because the proposal was going through the usual procedures the Secretary of State could not comment as this might prejudice the outcome. We now have the opportunity to hear a response to the points made in the petition.
The petition stressed the danger of subsidence in the area, which has been mined in the past. Opencast developments often upset the land, and that is likely to affect people's homes. Because of the disruption that opencast mining causes, it may make the area unacceptable as an area in which to live, and the value of people's homes will then be seriously affected. The problems of noise, dust and pollution stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover were also of concern to my constituents and they were worried about the effects of the development on wildlife in the area. We are talking about people who live in industrial areas but who at present have access to the green belt which allows them to get away from the collieries and industries in the area. That green belt area would be affected by the development.
In addition to the problems arising from heavy traffic, serious problems may arise from dust. Evidence from Wales shows that people living in areas affected by dust may suffer from lung problems. I have a map from the Opencast Executive showing all the areas in north-east Derbyshire that it finds of interest in terms of development. It shows not only Pinnock but massive other areas, including those which have coal seams but are not the site of former pits. Many rural and middle-class areas would be hammered by the future development that Pinnock would open up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned that some sites could be used for the dumping of toxic waste and he described the dangers that could arise. We are particularly aware of that danger in north-east Derbyshire. Leigh Environmental, which operates a plant at Killamarsh, was at the forefront of the attempts to permit the Karen B to dock in Britain and to allow the dangerous materials it was carrying to be dumped in this country—some of which might have been deposited in a built-up area in my constituency while they were in transit. Such matters are of concern not only to my constituents in the Mastin moor area but to other people living in north-east Derbyshire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I reject the argument made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Ministers are unaware of the impact of opencast mining on the green belt and of the problems outside the Surrey countryside. As I represent an inner-city seat—Lewisham,


East—suffering from serious socio-economic deprivation, the hon. Gentleman knows only too well that that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Bolsover explained his concern with characteristic vigour, and I congratulate him on bringing the subject before the House—not least because I had the opportunity yesterday to study the matter in detail in Wakefield, where a Labour city council has responded effectively to the environmental problems that are posed by many opencast and derelict sites, and to the need to be environmentally sensitive, in terms of investment and of working effectively with British Coal.
The Government recognise that although mineral working is a temporary use of land, it can have a serious impact on the environment. At the same time, minerals are essential to society and to the national economy, and it is a geological fact of life that such mines can be worked only where they occur.
It is the job of the planning system to strike a balance between the need for the mineral, and the environmental and other considerations involved. The Government's planning policy on opencast coal is explained in more detail in "Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3", published in May of last year. The guidance note sets out the national policy framework within which each application must be considered and it provides advice to mineral planning authorities on the balance that should be struck between the social and economic benefits of that low-cost energy source and the protection of the environment.
As opencast coal is one of the cheapest forms of energy available to the country, it is in the national interest to maximise production, when that can be done in an environmentally aceptable way.
There is no Government target for coal production or opencast output. That is properly a matter for the market place to determine. It is for the industry to decide the level of opencast output that it needs to achieve in any set period, but it is for the appropriate mineral planning authority initially to determine the acceptability of specific projects—having regard both to the benefits to be gained from opencasting and to the environmental and other material considerations relative to a specific site. Ultimately, if the case comes before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal or call-in, he will decide it on its relative merits—as he did in respect of one of the examples quoted in the debate.
The Government aim at encouraging a positive and constructive approach by the mining industry and mineral planning authorities, to ensure that that important energy resource is extracted in an environmentally acceptable way. The guidelines give clear advice on how that should be achieved.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the environmental impact of opencasting. We are concerned that questions of noise, dust, traffic and other effects are fully considered. "Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3" provides advice on how those impacts should be handled by mineral planning authorities. The environmental effects of opencasting can be considerable, and developers need to demonstrate that those effects can be kept down to an acceptable level. The effects of noise, dust, vibrations from blasting and the movement of traffic can be minimised by careful planning

of the site layout—for example, by the arrangement of physical baffles and by moving work away from residential areas quickly.
Planning conditions are also important—for example, to control noise aspects. The guidance recognises, however, that in some cases those factors will produce such a severe effect on the environment and the quality of life locally that planning permission should not be given. All those aspects need to be carefully considered by the authority concerned. The acceptability of opencasting will depend in part on the likely environmental impact, and on the extent to which the effects can be minimised.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that sites can be restored to a high standard and, in some cases, can provide positive improvement in the landscape through the clearance of dereliction. The Government take the question of restoration very seriously. Planning permissions for mineral extraction should contain stringent conditions, many of them imposed to ensure a high standard of restoration and aftercare of the site. We recently published guidance for mineral planning authorities on the best practice regarding the reclamation of mineral workings, and the important role that good reclamation can play in securing the environmental acceptability of mineral working.
I hope that the House will forgive me for not having addressed the issue of the green belt in sufficient detail during this brief speech: time presses.
I know that discussions are currently taking place between Derbyshire county council and the British Coal Corporation about an application to opencast coal in an area known as the Pinnock site, and that statutory consultations have been carried out. It is, of course, open to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to make their views on the application known to the mineral planning authority at the appropriate time, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. Skinner: We have done so.

Mr. Moynihan: I am glad of that, because I am sure that the authority will give careful consideration to all aspects of the application, including the representations made by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. That is essential.
The hon. Gentleman has urged me to intervene in this case. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the Government's policy on call-in. It has long been established policy for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to intervene in the jurisdiction of planning authorities unless it is absolutely necessary for him to do so. That is an important principle: Parliament has given clear responsibilities to local planning authorities, and it would be entirely wrong for my right hon. Friend to interfere unnecessarily in the development control process.
My right hon. Friend will therefore continue to be very selective about calling in cases for his decision, and applications will be called in only if issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include those which, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, have wide effects beyond their immediate locality that give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, and conflict with national policy on important matters. In this case it seems from the information available to us that the issues involved—while undoubtedly of considerable concern locally, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out—do not


raise issues of regional or national importance. Derbyshire county council is therefore the appropriate authority to deal with the application.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am unable to comment on the relative merits of an individual planning application. There is always the possibility that Derbyshire county council will refuse planning permission, in which event it would be the prerogative of the applicant—the British Coal Corporation—to lodge an appeal, which would come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a decision. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that in that eventuality all aspects of the case would be fully considered.
The hon. Gentleman has also raised the important issue of the Slayley site, and has written to my right hon. Friend on a number of occasions about a redetermined noise condition. Planning permission for opencast operations and ancillary works on the Slayley site was granted on appeal by my right hon. Friend on 14 December 1987, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed inspector who had previously held a public local inquiry. Subsequently, an appeal was lodged with my right hon. Friend for the alteration of the noise condition. In

accordance with the normal practice, an inspector was appointed to carry out a site visit, consider representations and prepare a report with recommendations. The inspector recommended that the appeal be upheld subject to altered conditions on noise, and my right hon. Friend issued his decision allowing the appeal on 10 August this year.
Parties are consulted again only if my right hon. Friend wishes to take into account any new evidence. That was not the case with the Slayley noise condition; the noise issue was discussed fully at the public local inquiry. Consultation in such circumstances would have been inappropriate and irrelevant, as there was no appeal by way of a High Court challenge during the six-week statutory period.
I fully understand and appreciate the concern of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about noise levels from the workings, and I will be happy to respond in writing to the points with which I have not had time to deal today. I am sorry that time has prevented me from doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.